]> http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog Expert group blog hosted by green aggregator Greenedia.com and focused on climate change, global warming and environmental issues. Written by a group of top green and environmental bloggers focused on critical environmental commentary and opinion. en http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/03/Futurists-Explore-Alternative-Energy?rsstype=group&gid=1 What are the prospects for solar being the catch-all solution to our energy problems? Most environmentalists will say that it cannot, and then go on to list the array of belt-tightening solutions that need to be addressed. They and other naysayers will point to the low efficiency of solar panels, or the manufacturing expense, or what-have-you. Usually an improvement in technology is not factored in, but that's because they tend to be taking the wise and conservative position of doing what we can with what we have, not hoping for a breakthrough that may never come. Ray Kurzweil, noted futurist, doesn't quite see it that way, and neither does the panel he sat on at the request of the National Association of Engineers. With a series of strong predictions under his belt, and a penchant for seeing dramatic changes down the line for humanity, Kurzweil provided a no less bold prediction by suggesting that solar will be supplying all of Earth's energy in 20 years. One of the reasons they cite is the diversification in the solar market currently underway. Instead of just the traditional photovoltaic panels, installed in static racks to catch what sun they happen to be pointed at, the latest generation of solar uses sun-following computers, concentrators that use just a fraction of a typical photovoltaic cell to generate power, and innovative ways to use the heat from a solar concentrator to generate electricity. The other reason seems to be that technological advance simply continues to accelerate. In a concept that Kurzweil calls the Singularity, technological advance accelerates constantly, and the time it takes for a new technology to reach 80% of the population decreases with every cycle of innovation. Mobile phones, for instance, have reached a staturation level in less than 20 years what it took Alexander Graham Bell's telephone a century to achieve. If Kurzweil is right, and there's no reason to think he might not be at this point, the energy situation could rapidly become a question of the past, in the same way that instant, round-the-world communication has become a given. If solar is competitive with coal in five years, the possibilities indeed become limitless. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/03/Futurists-Explore-Alternative-Energy?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:40:43 -0500 alternative energy cleantech solar futurism Ray Kurzweil National Association of Engineers expert panel http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/03/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report-EU-Reports-Kyoto-Progress-Oil-by-the-Barrel-Hits-Record-Ultracpacitors-on-the-Way--Daylight-Savings-Doesnt-Save?rsstype=group&gid=1 This is a selection of recent popular blog articles aggregated on Greenedia.com, where you will find the best blogs from the world of green media, as well as video uploads, podcasts, and blog authoring. EU Releases Environment Scorecard Treehugger blogged this week on the self-scoring the EU released on their progress toward Kyoto emissions and energy goals. The outlook was not that great, altogether, though progress has been made in the appropriate direction, unlike the US and Japan, which also received scores, and seem to be heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, according to the scorecard, the EU is still not on track to meet those goals. They reproduced a chart from the report in the post, giving a clear indication of how the various initiatives are doing, as percentage changes from a baseline calculation. In fact, the chart shows the only current hope for success in the EU of meeting their goals, in greenhouse gas emission reduction. Other areas, such as electricity from renewables and biodiversity, do not appear to be on track and are a significant concern for the EU. Record Oil Prices and President Bush's Uninformed State Over at Clean Energy, Jesse Jenkins points out that oil has recently set a record, beating the inflation-adjusted previous high of 1980. At $103.05 last week, oil beat the previous record by about fifty cents, and ushered in a new wave of speculation that gas at the pump could top $4 per gallon this spring when reformulated gasoline starts flowing from the refineries. Of more concern to Jenkins in the post itself, is that US President Bush seems to be unaware that such a dramatic spike in gas prices could be coming so soon, according to industry analysts. Jenkins advocates, among other things, a re-investment of the subsidies currently going to oil companies in solutions for the growing fossil fuel crisis. Ultracapacitors Could Spell The End of Batteries With everyone looking for better ways to store electricity, EcoGeek points out news that ultracapacitors (or ultracaps ) may have been the subject of a breakthrough that would move them past batteries in preference. The auto industry has long considered them unsuitable for electric vehicle implementations on account of their relatively low energy density when compared to batteries--just able to store 5% of what a same-sized Lithium-Ion battery could store. The breakthrough, as EcoGeek goes on to say, comes from an MIT research project into nanoscale ultracapacitors which could store up to half of what a Lithium-Ion battery does. While the technology is not ready to fly out of the lab into a car just yet, the promise of continued research indicates that just such a development may be just around the corner. No Savings in Falling Back and Springing Forward With the spring forward of daylight savings time just around the corner, GristMill unearths a report that suggests that the supposed energy savings ofthe annual springing forward and falling back don't actually amount to much. The theory goes that with an extra hour of daylight in the evenings, we'll use less electricity in lighting our homes, and thus save some energy. But recently, with the state of Indiana electing to adopt Daylight Savings statewide, where only a few counties had been on-board with it before, an opportunity was realized to study the theory in the real world. Delving deeper, GristMill discovers that not only aren't there any savings in the process, but it's actually a waste of money and energy over maintaining standard time year round. Researchers at University of California-Santa Barbara discovered that spending on energy increased by $8.6 million for the state of Indiana alone while on Daylight Savings--not a savings at all but, as GristMill says, a wastings. About Greenedia Greenedia is your guide to the best Green social media available on the Internet. SoMedia Networks Inc, which also operates Inveslogic.com, Healthedia.com and Blabaloo.com, is building the first network of social media websites dedicated to finding, organizing and presenting content based on expertise and authority. For more information or to register an account, visit Greenedia.com. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/03/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report-EU-Reports-Kyoto-Progress-Oil-by-the-Barrel-Hits-Record-Ultracpacitors-on-the-Way--Daylight-Savings-Doesnt-Save?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:18:38 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/03/EnergyStar-and-Server-Efficiency?rsstype=group&gid=1 Energy efficiency in the IT industry needs a broad-spectrum attack on most every aspect of the information technology experience, but the area most in need of attention is that of servers. Data centers and server farms tend to be dramatically inefficient, especially as they have a tendency to hold onto old and outdated equipment which runs less efficiently as it ages. But they're also high concentrations of high powered computers that run hot and need a commensurate amount of cooling hardware to keep them running at their peak. The US Environmental Protection Agency's EnergyStar division has long been a player in making computers more efficient, but now they're stepping it up in order to make the servers that are the hub of the entire industry more efficient. Virtually every business, down to some of the smallest, uses servers to store their critical data and guide their operations, and EnergyStar's attempt to create meaningful guidelines should help improve them. Together with Google and Intel's industry-wide effort to create more efficient desktops, this kind of move should have a quick and positive impact. A recent study would suggest that, despite the reduction in paper used, reading newspaper hardcopy is actually greener than reading the news online. The bulk of the reasoning would be that newspapers draw no power while one is reading them, but EcoGeek disputes the validity of the numbers and suggests that the study ignores the potential negative environmental impact of the printing and production process (which only has to occur once for a computer, but many times each day for newspapers). What could settle the argument, in fact, is a leaner, greener IT infrastructure. The reality is that periodical news and entertainment reading is increasingly moving on-line. Traditional newspapers are hemorrhaging money, while Google has demonstrated that on-line advertising is a viable income stream, even though most people do still get their news on paper. Arguments about which is greener is irrelevant, because the driving factor is which is more flexible, more in tune with the needs of today's consumers. What needs to happen is that experience--and all the other thousands of things people today get done on-line--needs to be more efficient, and EnergyStar's proposed guidelines are a big step in that direction. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/03/EnergyStar-and-Server-Efficiency?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:12:48 -0500 cleantech energy efficiency datacenters computer efficiency EPA EnergyStar http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Cheap-Hydrogen-For-Fuel-Cell-Vehicles?rsstype=group&gid=1 One of the obstacles to what some call the hydrogen economy is the prospect of refuelling infrastructure. Most naysayers for hydrogen envision that hydrogen will become a one-to-one replacement for gasoline--my car will have a hydrogen tank in place of the gas tank, I'll go to the hydrogen filling station when I need more, and we'll have to find some way to distribute hydrogen from massive refiniries to the filling stations. But hydrogen isn't oil. It's a major component of water, for instance, and thus in theory can be made anywhere. The prospect probably puts a chilling fear into the hearts of oil company executives everywhere, but their goose is likely cooked any way that you slice it. The future of transportation is not in fossil fuels, or any other sort of resource like it, unless ethanol becomes a lot more viable than it is right now. And there's possibility there--hydrogen right now is no more or less viable than ethanol--but hydrogen has the advantage of orders of magnitude greater abundance going for it. QuantumSphere Inc. seems ready to take one of the next steps forward in promoting hydrogen, however, using nanoparticles to increase the efficiency of electrolysis. Electrolysis is the process by which hydrogen is extracted from water, and requires a great deal more energy put in than is gotten out. And unfortunately, it's unlikely that more energy will be realized from the process than is put in--thanks to one of the laws of thermodynamics. But hydrogen, in this case, is essentially about providing the sort of range that gasoline provides a car. In that case, the trade-off of a slight amount of energy loss is worth it, so long as batteries fail to offer the same kind of range. The nanoparticle-enhanced electrolysis could happen on such a small scale, the company hopes, that the entire process could be contained within the vehicle. The car would still need to be plugged in at night, say, for the hydrogen to be generated, but there would need to be no new equipment to come along with the car and, indeed, no filling stations. In the same way some are promoting the idea of home hydrogen fuel cells to make rooftop solar power a more realistic alternative; surplus solar energy during the day would electrolyze hydrogen, then used to power fuel cells at night or during days of extreme cloud cover. Good for the consumer but bad for the big, powerful energy industry, including oil, would be this libertarian aspect to a hydrogen economy. In fact, that trillion dollar collection of companies would cease to meaningfully exist, unless they moved into the manufacture and distribution of the necessary hardware. The ability to generate power, the power to drive, the power to live in comfort, would be entirely in the hands of the people. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Cheap-Hydrogen-For-Fuel-Cell-Vehicles?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:46:38 -0500 cleantech alternative energy hydrogen hydrogen fuel cell electrolysis alternative fuel auto industry fossil fuels http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--Germany-and-Renewables-Biggest-Greenwasher-Photovoltaics-Deep-Green-UK-Seeks-Better-Biofuel-Understanding?rsstype=group&gid=1 This is a selection of recent popular blog artciles aggregated on Greenedia.com, where you will find the best blogs from the world of green media, as well as video uploads, podcasts, and blog authoring. Germany Gets Creative With Renewables This past week Treehugger wondered if Germany was on the road to a 100% renewable, sustainable economy. They point to a potentially groundbreaking experiment in weaning an energy grid off of nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources in a short time frame. The University of Kassel cooperated with three German energy companies in the experiment. Treehugger goes into a bit more detail (while also providing an in-line YouTube video), and suggests that the approach used, of building a power plant that combined a number of different sources of energy--from solar, to wind, to biogas--could provide steady and uninterrupted power for the grid around the clock and in any conditions. Such a distributed means of providing power, in the small scale, was able to replicate the always-on nature of a coal or natural gas plant with the sustainability of renewable sources. Greenwasher of the Decade Climate Progress recalls the seedier side of the cleantech movement by highlighting the decade's biggest greenwasher--that is, the company that provided the thinnest veneer of sustainability while continuing in their carbon-emitting, fossil-fuel capitalizing ways. Their winner was British Petroleum, which seems to be satisfied with their renewable efforts as just a veneer following the purchase of tar sands in an effort to prolong the dominance of oil. They quote from a Guardian article and use the information to disparage the new CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward and his efforts to stop the company's once promising forward momentum and return them to reliance on petroleum. Lord John Browne, the former CEO who laid out BP's renewable path, has been quiet since he stepped down and Climate Progress feels that the departure of his vision for the company has been the biggest blow to their green fortunes. Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles Over at Energy Blog, they're looking at a report that delves into the long tail of emissions from the life cycle of photovoltaic solar panels. The report breaks down which of the four major types of photovoltaic solar panels consume the least amount of energy in their manufacturing and life cycle, versus their potential energy output over the life of the panel. In the post, they point to thin-film cadmium-telluride solar cells as the clear winner in terms of minimal energy usage. Energy Blog goes on to point out that all of them have extremely low energy profiles when compared to fossil fuels, despite the intensive nature of their manufacture, probably due to the 20+ year life cycle of a typical photovoltaic solar panel, which has paid for its own energy usage many, many times over by the time it needs to be replaced. UK Goverment Seeks Grasp of Biofuels' Indirect Impacts AutoBlog Green takes notice of the fact that the British government is seeking answers on the deep green and other, non-obvious impacts of the use of biofuels. Some obvious effects have already been noted--such as the increase in food prices in response to the drive for corn-based ethanol as a fuel soltuion--but the government is also trying to look deeper at ethanol and other biofuels before creating the kind of policy that US President George W. Bush has been pushing. The Department for Transport has commissioned a report from the UK's Renewable Fuels Agency for delivery by summer, according to the post. The call comes immediately following reports in Science that biofuels may not be all they're cracked up to be, and with the UK signatory to the Kyoto Protocols, as well as beholden to courses charted by the EU, they are looking for definitive answers to better chart the progress of these policies. About Greenedia Greenedia is your guide to the best Green social media available on the Internet. SoMedia Networks Inc, which also operates Inveslogic.com, Healthedia.com and Blabaloo.com, is building the first network of social media websites dedicated to finding, organizing and presenting content based on expertise and authority. For more information or to register an account, visit Greenedia.com. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--Germany-and-Renewables-Biggest-Greenwasher-Photovoltaics-Deep-Green-UK-Seeks-Better-Biofuel-Understanding?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:21:00 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Official-Renewable-Efforts-Gain-Traction?rsstype=group&gid=1 Renewable energy remains one of the big issues in terms of converting to a clean economy, and official action on many levels is required to make that happen. While national governments slowly start to catch up, much of the heavy lifting is still being done on the state, province, and local levels. In many ways intended to prepare for eventual federal requirements, and also to placate a populace that demands action, a number of states and localities have provided very aggressive measures to attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce energy consumption. On the federal level, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) called for new renewable energy legislation at the Renewable Energy World Conference & Exhibition North America. Seeking a national standard of renewable energy, along with incentives for participation and standardization for home renewable energy efforts, Sen. Reid is banking on a growing feeling of urgency for renewable energy standards. He also seems to be looking with an eye toward the upcoming Presidential election, where all three current front-runners, including Republican Sen. John McCain, have strong renewable energy planks in their platforms, promising stronger potential for action than under the current administration. The Canadian government meanwhile is backing a project in Eastern Canada by Thermal Energy to help a pulp and paper mill reclaim biowaste as energy to run critical plant functions. Thermal Energy is hoping that the project will serve as a sort of beacon for future renewable energy efforts in Canada. Three Michigan universities--University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University in downtown Detroit--are teaming up to provide funding to full-time faculty to research sustainable projects as part of their existing University Research Corridor cooperative. The hope there is to do together what the faculties of the three big universities could not do on their own, and along the way help redevelop Michigan's stagnant economy. In terms of leadership in renewable energy, Portugal would seem to be leading the pack, aiming for 45% of energy from renewables by 2010--one of the most aggressive goals in the world--with an eye toward 60% not long after. While Portugal's geography and small size offer a somewhat easier path to a sustainable economy, they are also a showcase of what determination can do when tackling a problem such as this. Some in the State of Maryland, in fact, could take a page from their book, should the state government enact legislation calling for a 90% reduction in emissions by 2050. While it is an ambitious goal, 90% by 2050 is by no means out of reach of any developed nation (or portion thereof), and should be approached with enthusiasm and determination, not doomsaying and negativity. In all, there is a great deal of forward motion, naysayers aside, on the positioning of renewable energy as a viable basis for future economy; days are coming when holdouts are more notable than adopters, and the world may well be on its way to a sustainable future. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Official-Renewable-Efforts-Gain-Traction?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:35:32 -0500 renewable energy sustainable legislation thermal energy biowaste reclamation solar energy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report-Coal-Prices-to-Double-Chrysler-Sets-Broad-Sights-Organic-Hydrogen-Producers-Decoded-Hybrids-Only-A-Stort-Term-Solution?rsstype=group&gid=1 This is a selection of recent popular blog artciles aggregated on Greenedia.com, where you will find the best blogs from the world of green media, as well as video uploads, podcasts, and blog authoring. Coal Prices Open The Door To Biomass Looking toward the possible rise of biomass as an energy source, BioPact Blog points out that coal prices could conceivably double in the next two years. A variety of pressures on the supply of coal, including limits on production in Indonesia and Australia, and spiraling demand in China and India, are consiring to drive prices up, perhaps much more rapidly than the market is ready to absorb. The market already received a shock, in fact, when rumors circulated that an Asian steel company paid well above market value for coal. BioPact goes on to suggest possible high volume alternatives to coal, such as massive brush overgrowth in northern Namibia that could provide up to 500TWh of energy in lieu of coal. This concept, as well as BioPact's outline for medium and long-term implementation of a biomass fuel economy provides a continuum of energy provision should the price of coal continue to expand in such a dramatic fashion. Chrysler Exploring Every Available Green Car Tech Reporting on a video clip of Carlist's Lou Ann Hammon, AutoBlogGreen says that Chrysler seems to be approaching green car technology on every front, looking for the best possible solutions out of what has become a host of alternatives. The video clip features Hammond speaking with Chairman and Vice President of Chrysler Jim Press, who discusses the company's plans down for the future. Focusing on the fate of the dual mode hybrid that had been developed with GM and BMW while Chrysler was actually Daimler-Chrysler, AutoBlogGreen looks at the direction of the Big Three company now that Daimler has departed the partnership again. Daimler seems to have left the dual mode hybrid to Chrysler which they are seeking to develop aggressively, in addition to all the other options. Their philosophy is that it's not wise to focus too narrowly in this time of transition. Genome Sequenced For Hydrogen Producing Anaerobe Green Car Congress points out that a team of German researchers have decoded the genome for a variety of bacteria that produces hydrogen as a waste process. Growing on sole energy sources ethanol and acetate, the well-studied bacterium provides intriguing options for producing hydrogen from complex sources without slow and expensvie electrolysis. The post identifies the Max Planck Institute as the source of the research and provides a link to the official publication of the group's findings. French Insist Hybrids Only For The Short Term Treehugger takes exception to French research that suggests that hybrids are only a short term solution to looming shortages--and price increases--in oil. In fact, Treehugger can't seem to believe that research needs to be done into the question of whether or not hybrids are the final solution, since it almost seems to go without saying that they're not. Hybrids, at best, only extend the mileage of existing internal combustion engines not provide a true alternative. In the post they suggest a number of measures to thumb one's nose at the findings, including driving a hybrid. The vehicles may not be a final solution, but they're a better alternative to the lower mileage non-hybrid vehicles, and help to push off the probem a little to give more time for more permanent solutions to be worked out. They also suggest commenting on the research (and providing appropriate links) and helping support the research into long term solutions. About Greenedia Greenedia is your guide to the best Green social media available on the Internet. SoMedia Networks Inc, which also operates Inveslogic.com, Healthedia.com and Blabaloo.com, is building the first network of social media websites dedicated to finding, organizing and presenting content based on expertise and authority. For more information or to register an account, visit Greenedia.com. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report-Coal-Prices-to-Double-Chrysler-Sets-Broad-Sights-Organic-Hydrogen-Producers-Decoded-Hybrids-Only-A-Stort-Term-Solution?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:34:34 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Government-A-Bellwether-For-Green-Fortunes?rsstype=group&gid=1 How can we tell when spending on cleantech and other eco-friendly sectors is on the up? When government gets in on it, especially in an election year. With Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) taking the lead in delegates tonight for the Democratic Presidential nomination, the question opens up as to how he plans to deal with energy issues in the event of his nomination and potential election to the Presidency. And so far, it seems like he is pushing the most aggressive line of the three remaining major candidates across both parties. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sen. Obama wants to push for carbon neutrality in the federal government itself by 2025 and 50 percent reductions in emissions nationwide by 2030. [via GreenBang] Perhaps in spite of, but perhaps because of this very aggressive push for emissions reductions and carbon neutrality, Obama is enjoying broad popular support and vying for a nomination that some saw as Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) to lose. But support here, at the federal level may be what cleantech and alternative energy and the rest of the green range of options to take off for real. Strong federal support, for instance, would vastly improve the investment fortunes of emerging cleantech companies as Wall Street would see a guaranteed outlet for the new technology and products as the massive federal bureaucracies lumbered toward carbon neutrality. In this way, it's far more than just imposing a few strict regulation on how much of what can be emitted or produced or consumed--as it did with information and computer technology, the government would represent a solid basis for business, a way for companies to build the scale they need to bring prices down to average consumer levels and investors to put their money in with a measure of certainty. State and local governments have already started this process, of course. Ontario, Canada has earmarked $15 million to promising, transformative projects in the province. And while that may be a pittance compared to the billions Sen. Obama is hoping to spend, it's a start, a leg-up for many companies that need just that much patronage in order to start rolling their products out the door and making them attractive to the rest of their possible customer base. The future of cleantech is going to be a mix between free market growth and significant government spending--many revolutionary changes have happened just that way, and this looks to be no different. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Government-A-Bellwether-For-Green-Fortunes?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:21:33 -0500 cleantech presidential race barack obama energy policy energy spending government spending emission reduction http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report-Biofuels-Harm-the-Environment-Bush-Promotes-Inefficiency-Sustainable-Style-Solar-Installer-Readies-IPO?rsstype=group&gid=1 This is a selection of recent popular blog artciles aggregated on Greenedia.com, where you will find the best blogs from the world of green media, as well as video uploads, podcasts, and blog authoring. How Biofuels Increase Carbon Emissions Science Blog offers interesting criticism of the use of biofuels by way of a report from the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy that says use of biofuels can actually speed up global warming where natural ecosystems are converted to biofuel farmland. The existing flora, it turns out, is better at processing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than the stock used for ethanol and biodiesel, worsening the climate change balance. The article cites a classic example in the Amazon rain forest, where farmers are being encouraged to clear cut existing rain forest and plant soybeans, the current system rewarding them for quantity of crop as opposed to carbon balance. Science Blog does go on to say, however, that there are a number of different locales and environments in which biofuel crops are an improvement or a push in terms of carbon emission offset over existing vegetation. President Bush's Energy Budget Doesn't Go Far Enough Joe Romm at Climate Progress takes President Bush to task for offering stirring and positive energy rhetoric while attempting to slash Department of Energy funding for critical projects. Focusing on his recent State of the Union Address statements, Romm suggests that the President's calls for action on energy and climate questions was a rhetorical smokescreen, hiding a broad deemphasizing of the question and the defunding of a number of programs. Providing a breakdown of the budget request in the post, he endeavors to show that Bush is not at all serious about the energy issues facing the United States and is trying to sweep it under the rug in his last year in office. Programs such as water energy research (that is, hydroelectric, wave, and steam power) appear to face significant cuts, along with completely defunding the Renewable Energy Production Incentive. Several programs do get boosts, including more research money for carbon sequestration in coal-fired plants and $7.5 million for the Asia-Pacific Partnership. Paris Looks to Make Sustainability Stylish Last week EcoGeek took a look at Parisian construction project that aims to blend the kind of art and style that the city is known for with a 21st century energy ethic. Brainchild of Vincent Callebaut, noted architect and designer, the building would sit astride a disused canal in the city's 19th district. Actually a pair of buildings, the structures would aim to provide their own energy while simultaneously, actively reducing smog in the city. According to the post, Callebaut hopes to achieve this with an external mix of photovoltaic solar cells and a structure faced with titanium dioxide that reacts with organics and reduces airborne pollutants and contaminants when exposed to the UV radiation present in sunlight. Both structures would also feature copious greenery on their exterior surfaces, and the second of the pair, a helical tower, would have built-in turbines to harness the wind that sweeps down the canal. Real Goods Seeks Wall Street Splash With IPO Treehugger points out that solar installer Real Goods has completed paperwork to make an initial public offering (IPO) on NASDAQ. The company, now oned by Gaiam, recently acquired two other installation companies as part of a move to market consolidation, and now seeks investment funding to expand further. Real Goods' revenues, according to Treehugger, were estimated at $32.7 million for 2007, with profits of nearly half a million, with the acquired companies' revenues and profits taken into account. Going public could vastly improve Real Goods' standing and better position them in what is sure to be a highly competitive solar energy market. About Greenedia Greenedia is your guide to the best Green social media available on the Internet. SoMedia Networks Inc, which also operates Inveslogic.com, Healthedia.com and Blabaloo.com, is building the first network of social media websites dedicated to finding, organizing and presenting content based on expertise and authority. For more information or to register an account, visit Greenedia.com. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report-Biofuels-Harm-the-Environment-Bush-Promotes-Inefficiency-Sustainable-Style-Solar-Installer-Readies-IPO?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:55:18 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/What-It-Takes?rsstype=group&gid=1 One of the biggest hurdles to pushing an alternative energy technology is that it must compete with entrenched energy tech that has billions--literally, the economies of entire regions--behind it, which means it needs millions and billions in order to gain ground. Most investors, in fact, even angels and VCs, are going to need to see new technologies and techniques working in scale, beyond the laboratory before they take their calculated risks. That's where Google aims to become a major player, an enabler of sorts in the greening of America. Where nascent technologies hope to supplement or replace our current energy technologies, but need a hand over the transom so to speak, Google's philanthropic arm wants to be there to provide the funding to bring scale to these technologies. The Mountain View, CA-based company has long been passionate about the role of cleantech and alternative energy in the future of human endeavor. Their corporate headquarters is partially powered by solar tree farms planted in their parking lots, and they're leading a major technology consortium to develop and deploy computing technologies that are dramatically more efficient than what is currently on the market. So this kind of thing is no surprise, but the scale is certainly ambitious. Also ambitious, and also needing major funding to make it over the hurdle into full funding and respectability is the prospect of using nuclear fusion to replace coal, fission, and other dirty and uncertain means to produce electricity. A Canadian company hopes to make that a reality, and may do it in the next decade or so, according to VC Wal van Lierop. General Fusion hopes to take a novel means of creating fusion in a laboratory setting (though by no means the physicists' dubious Holy Grail of fusion that can take place at room temperature, so-called cold fusion) and develop it into a viable technology that can produce more energy than it requires, the gold standard for any sustainable energy technology. Getting to that gold standard however, will require a lot of the kind of money that Google and van Lierop are offering before it could begin to produce a return on the investment. But with support like this, it's hard to imagine that these kinds of efforts could not succeed. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/What-It-Takes?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:12:48 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--Sky-Trust-Carbon-Trading-Increasing-Solar-Installations-GMC-Denali-XT-Concept-Goes-Super-Green--Lithium-Ion-Battery-Factory-Breaks-Ground?rsstype=group&gid=1 This is a selection of recent popular blog artciles aggregated on Greenedia.com, where you will find the best blogs from the world of green media, as well as video uploads, podcasts, and blog authoring. Carbon Cap-And-Dividend That Pays Citizens In his blog, TriplePundit takes a look at a carbon trading scheme aimed at paying back to citizens and consumers. Wanting a workable, sensible carbon policy for the US, TriplePundit assesses the Citizens Guide to Carbon Capping, a novel approach to the question of carbon trading that attempts to reach citizens directly, rather than being a shell game for corporations. Otherwise it would seem to work on the same concept--individuals and companies would be rewarded for reducing their consumption and emissions, rewards essentially funded by those less eager to change their lifestyle. According to the post, the SkyTrust is an answer of sorts to the short-term failure of the European Trading Scheme (ETS) which has actually resulted in an increase in emissions among participating nations, not the hoped-for reduction. SkyTrust would resolve this in part by presenting a hard cap, rather than just relying on market forces to work, and providing no exemptions or outs. Through such means, the trust would aim to reduce emissions 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Here Comes The Sun In a guest post at GristMill, Earl Killian shows off some nifty imagery, demonstrating the growth of solar installations across the United States. He links to a site that provides many graphical distributions of the data, including that of annual growth, marking how solar has exploded over the past five years as a viable energy producer. He also asks the question as to why so many solar installations are concentrated in California and New Jersey. Breaking down the numbers, he points that the places that have high concentrations of solar energy installations are those that offer significant economic incentives for installing. Not a great surprise, and a call to action for those states that would see greater use of clean and renewable energy in the US. Hybrid and Flexfuel In One Vehicle Over at AutoBlogGreen, they're profiling a number of new and concept vehicles as the auto show circuit warms up, including the GMC Denali XT, a resurrection of the old El Camino bodystyle. The bodystyle is a bit of a resurrection for GM, coming from that old El Camino, but also fitting with the current automaker passion for convergent vehicles, those that combine utility aspects from less efficient vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks, with the lower profile and greater efficiency of sedans and coupes. What gets AutoBlogGreen all excited about it, however, is that the Denali XT combines a two mode hybrid power-train with E85 ethanol flexfuel capability. While E85 tends to reduce overall mileage, GM is betting big on backing cheap ethanol, providing an overall savings to drivers, especially combined with the tank-stretching power of hybrids. Ford had already started testing such a combination in their Ford Escape. Such convergance is likely to be a wave of the future. France to Start Production of Lithium-Ion Car Batteries Treehugger reports that US auto supplier group Johnson Controls and French battery maker Saft are set to break ground on a facility exclusively for the production of advanced lithium-ion batteries for the auto industry. The batteries are commonly found in today's two-mode gas-electric hybrids and could form the basis for all-electric vehicles like Tesla Motors' offerings and GM's Chevy Volt. The post indicates that the facility will at first supply GM, Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz, but could expand to provide critical supply to all automakers internationally. Likewise, a dedicated facility will better be able to respond to advances in Lithium-Ion technology that promises to expand capacity and further reduce weight, critical to providing long distance fleets of electric vehicles. About Greenedia Greenedia is your guide to the best Green social media available on the Internet. SoMedia Networks Inc, which also operates Inveslogic.com, Healthedia.com and Blabaloo.com, is building the first network of social media websites dedicated to finding, organizing and presenting content based on expertise and authority. For more information or to register an account, visit Greenedia.com. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--Sky-Trust-Carbon-Trading-Increasing-Solar-Installations-GMC-Denali-XT-Concept-Goes-Super-Green--Lithium-Ion-Battery-Factory-Breaks-Ground?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:37:02 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--Hybrid-Buses-Are-Go-Oregon-Proposes-Cap-and-Trade-Ann-Arbor-Goes-All-LED-and-Abu-Dhabi-Aims-For-Alt-Energy-Leadership5486?rsstype=group&gid=1 This is a selection of recent popular blog artciles aggregated on Greenedia.com, where you will find the best blogs from the world of green media, as well as video uploads, podcasts, and blog authoring. 1700 Hybrid Buses Ordered Allison Transmission, according to the Green Car Congress, has received orders totalling 1700 new hybrid bus transmissions for municipal fleets in Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. The order would double the number of GM-Allison powered buses on the roads, and may create the largest fleet of hybrids in the US via Washington's order for nearly 1000. There are currently about 1000 of the hybrid buses on the roads right now, helping to make an efficient form of urban travel even cleaner. According to GCC, Allison builds the hybrid transmissions under license with General Motors, and that GM intends to release a number of new hybrid models in the near future. GM has attempted to position itself as a very green automaker at the recent Detroit auto shows, so it is no surprise that they're aggressively pursuing this line of business. And the current crop of buses display impressive numbers when it comes to reducing pollution, providing the golden green ideal of reducing energy consumption and emissions simultaneously. Oregon Heads for Cap-and-Trade One of the big ideas being chucked around the clean energy discussion these days is that of cap-and-trade, as mentioned by Maria Energia. Oregon's contemplation of such a move would make it one of the first localities in the United States to even suggest such a system for resident companies, much less approve and implement one. According to the post, both the governor and a prominent state legislator are making similar proposals to help cap Oregon's carbon emissions and provide income to clean energy projects in the meantime. Many other states--and the federal government itself--will certainly be watching to see if and how Oregon's plan succeeds. Ann Arbor's Low-Energy Lights Ann Arbor, Michigan--home to the University of Michigan and a very progressive population--has started on its way to 100% LED street lighting according to MetaEfficient. The lighting provides very bright illumination and lower energy consumption than traditional incandescent or even fluorescent lighting. Already quite popular in flashlights and other small-scale devices, the technology is quickly being ramped up to use in larger applications such as building lighting and, as in Ann Arbor, public outdoor lighting. In the post, MetaEfficient points out that full adoption of LED public lighting in Ann Arbor could halve the city's energy bill and dramatically reduce the annual emissions output. The city says it expects the LED installation to go about 4 years for return on investment, but with reduced energy use in a time when energy prices may rise dramatically, the return could come even sooner than that. Abu Dhabi and Cleantech VC Circle suggests that when you think of the Persian Gulf region, you do not think of green, in any shape or form. Between the arid climate, the oil-based economy, and the often dramatic excesses displayed by many of the regions' elite, there is not much that is either green or efficient about the Persian Gulf region, other than the ability to pump oil out of the ground and into the international market. But Abu Dhabi wants to change that perception. Proposing a $15 billion dollar green program, as the article states, Abu Dhabi (one of the seven states of the United Arab Emirates) hopes to become a hub for all things cleantech-related, from the manufacture of solar panels on down. What's most likely is that nations such as Abu Dhabi can read the writing on the wall and realize that the oil-based economy is not likely to sustain them in twenty years the way it has for the last fifty, and they are positioning themselves to lead in the new energy economy. About Greenedia Greenedia is your guide to the best Green social media available on the Internet. SoMedia Networks Inc, which also operates Inveslogic.com, Healthedia.com and Blabaloo.com, is building the first network of social media websites dedicated to finding, organizing and presenting content based on expertise and authority. For more information or to register an account, visit Greenedia.com. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/02/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--Hybrid-Buses-Are-Go-Oregon-Proposes-Cap-and-Trade-Ann-Arbor-Goes-All-LED-and-Abu-Dhabi-Aims-For-Alt-Energy-Leadership5486?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:47:29 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/Art-and-Utility-in-Green-Building?rsstype=group&gid=1 With green building, there is a necessary concern over form and function. For instance, solar water-heating options have been around forever; they're extremely simple, generally quite effective, and require nothing in the way of special or sensitive technology. They do tend, however, to be extremely ugly black appliques to existing structures, and not easily integrated visually. It's hard to say if that's been a factor for their extremely slow adoption, but it has to be taken into consideration, certainly. But as Wall Street Journal reports, green building is becoming easier to integrate into building design, and it is in fact starting to become standard, often ahead of building codes. Art museums, as they focus on, seem to be a natural target for green building advocates, especially as they often require energy-intensive climate control and security systems to safeguard their charges. The Grand Rapids Art Museum, of Grand Rapids, Michigan recently opened as the first new construction LEED-certified art museum. So, efficient building can also look good. More importantly, that kind of design requirement is made part of the aesthetic from the ground-up, not tacked on later. That kind of concern is also being applied to more pedestrian buildings, such as a proposed new firehouse in Noblesville, Indiana. Although it's not stated as part of the article, what's a clear concern is that the time is coming where government buildings are likely to be required to take the lead in energy efficiency and water conservation. That could mean, down the road, ugly and expensive appliques or refittings of essentially new structures, as the Noblesville firehouse would still be ten years from now, for instance. Hopefully, the State budget watchdogs that will fund the project are also considering, along with upfront cost, what the rennovation costs will be to bring the firehouse into a minimum green standards compliance in the future. The more that is done today in that direction, the less of a devestating impact mandatory changes could have in the future. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/Art-and-Utility-in-Green-Building?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:52:01 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/Break-Through--A-Book-Review?rsstype=group&gid=1 One of the things I like the most about the upcoming Presidential election is that we could actually wind up with candidates from both parties expressing a vision of a strong America, but one that is also energy- and emissions-conscious. Both sides have front-runner candidates that seem to be concerned about energy independence (at the very least from a national security standpoint) and seem to be invested in harnessing the traditional ingenuity and industry of the American people to make dramatic and lasting change. If that happens, I think Break Through by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger is going to be seen as a seminal work in that regard. They start at a point where they posit the pending death of environmentalism--that is, the historical end of the notion that ecology can be preserved exclusively through limits on human action, and the coordinating assumption that no human action other than imposing limits can help preserve nature, setting the two in essential, and false, isolation. From there the book looks into the failures of environmentalism, from the Amazon rain forest where a focused approach on simply stopping clearcutting has failed in spectacular fashion to the excesses of NIMBYism which shows dedicated environmentalists in Massachusetts fighting against low-impact, sea-based wind turbines for no reason other than to preserve their ocean views. In the end, they propose a sort of modern Apollo project--long term, with extraordinary vision, and dedicated to breaking US dependence on oil and coal through aggressive promotion of cleantech, alternative energy, and well managed cap-and-trade markets for carbon. In fact, they proposed such a plan to the Democratic Presidential candidates in 2004, but even four years ago energy was not the issue it is today, and found no one to promote it as part of their campaign. Nordhaus and Shellenberger take an intriguing tack in approaching the question of what they call postenvironmentalism and how its precursors--as well as the dramatic political change many thought was coming in 2004--failed. What they do is start with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is usually limited in discussion to the importance of food, shelter, and clothing, and address how America sees itself, not in a struggle to eat or be clothed, but in a struggle for status and personal satisfaction. Environmentalism, they say, fails in part because the limiting concepts core to traditional environmentalism force people down the Hierarchy of Needs, rather than let them climb it. While some proponents might be able to couch their appeals in terms of being able to do more with less, most people do not see it that way; they're only liable to listen and go along if you can promise a non-negative impact on their standard of living. For the first time in history, science and technology are on the cusp of being able to offer us just that: truly doing more while consuming less and making less of a negative impact on our environment. In fact, leaps forward in cleantech might be better able to help us improve and preserve the world's biodiversity, and likewise transmit those benefits, and that preservation, to the entire world. As they say toward the end of the book, it will turn the environmental movement's conditional support for economic development on its head: developing economies will be sustainable precisely to the extent that we invest in their development. Agree or not, what's certain is that Nordhaus and Shellenberger present an agressive, expansive vision for the future of humanity, and the specifics are quite simple. What remains to be seen is whether former political enemies can scrape together some humility and put it into action. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/Break-Through--A-Book-Review?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:58:40 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--155MW-of-Geothermal-Financing-Up-Cleantechs-Market-Durability-McCains-Energy-Profile-and-Ethanol-v-Hybrids?rsstype=group&gid=1 This is a selection of recent popular blog artciles aggregated on Greenedia, where you will find the best blogs from the world of green media, as well as video uploads, podcasts, and blog authoring. Merril Lynch Funds Raser Technologies for 155MW of Geothermal Power The Energy Blog reports that Wall Street powerhouse Merril Lynch has agreed to financing and structuring for as much as 155MW of geothermal power plants installed by Utah-based Raser Technologies. The deal also includes full funding for its first 10.5MW geothermal installation. The financing will give them enough capital to get their installation projects off the ground, including a goal of installing 100MW or more per year for the next three years. According to the article, Raser Technologies will utilize UTC Power PureCycle(tm) geothermal technology to exploit previously unusable geothermal fields, previously considered too cool for traditional geothermal power generation. From The Energy Blog: The PureCycle system makes it possible to tap into a significant new domestic renewable energy resource because it operates at previously unusable low temperatures -- from 165 to 300 degrees Fahrenheit. How Storm-Proof Is The Green Economy? This past week Grist tackled the question of how the cleantech economy will fare if the economic indicators are accurate and the US economy is headed for a downturn. So far, the green economy has shrugged off a number of challenges, and could conceivably continue to grow again in the coming year, as it has the past several years straight. By those indications, the green economy looks quite strong. But as Grist points out, Recessions don't play favorites, for the most part. A general downturn could still hurt the movement, giving governments less money to work with as consumers dial back spending and so forth. The post also points out that Wall Street has begun to get skittish about the possibility of a bursting stock bubble, though it seems that with so much to offer in terms of concrete developments and product it seems unlikely to suffer a significant fall. Evaluating McCain's Position On Energy With the Presidential election approaching at breakneck speed, Energy Outlook knows the value of assessing how each candidate views the looming energy issues that the US is facing. McCain specifically views much of the US energy policy through the lens of National Security, not surprising given his long-held views on the topic. And while his energy policy is not presented as a central plank to his platform, it seems to be a stronger-held view than with most of his Republican colleagues. Energy Outlook goes on to say that McCain seems to be the most global warming-oriented of the Republican candidates, embracing the concerns of the environmental community and pledging to make it a priority in his administration. And McCain did propose carbon cap-and-trade legislation, which has since been supplanted by a more ambitious bill, but certainly demonstrates his support for introducing government controls where the market is not getting the job done on its own. Do We Need A Winner? Ethanol, Hybrids, and Plug-in Hybrids EcoGeek wants to know why we need to pick one way of replacing ordinary, inefficient gasoline engines. The answer is that he thinks we don't--each one has strengths that can be better solutions in different situations. But beyond that, contributor Hank Green also wonders about technological convergence. Each technology brings an improvement to the table that could conceivably make the others that much more efficient. So why not an ethanol powered plug-in hybrid? The likely answer is that they're on their way, and it's only a matter of time before automakers start to chase the Holy Grail of efficiency--plus 100mpg vehicles. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/Greenedia-Weekly-Blog-Report--155MW-of-Geothermal-Financing-Up-Cleantechs-Market-Durability-McCains-Energy-Profile-and-Ethanol-v-Hybrids?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:08:53 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/State-of-the-World?rsstype=group&gid=1 Earlier this week, The Worldwatch Institute--a sustainability thinktank--released its annual State of the World report, a 270 page description of how the world is faring in terms of environment and sustainability, and where it can expect to be headed. The report, available from their site, goes in depth on the question of the world's approach to sustainability, with special focus on economic impact. The question of impact is, of course, crucial. One of the biggest concerns about global climate change is how it will affect not only animal and plant life around the world as habitats change and species fail to adapt, but also the impact on human societies and lifestyles that depend upon that animal and plant life. Likewise, the rising of oceans could make unlivable some cities, and more than just pushing people from their homes it could also crimp economic production as traditional centers of such could be displaced or destroyed. That's the bad news; climate scientists witnessed many worrying trends and developments in 2007 and have reason to worry. The good news, of course, is that the drive to do something about it seems to be as strong as ever. Dan Kulpinski of EarthSky Blogs describes the press conference at which the Worldwatch report was released as mostly upbeat, with a nod toward this year's explosion in cleantech development and investment. The better news, of course, is that much of the critical innovation, especially in green building, are already working, breathing improvements to existing structures. For much of the potential savings that the world needs to realize in energy and emissions, so many tools are already at our disposal and that side of innovation, the one that applies old or existing concepts to a new purpose, seems even stronger than the developmental, technological variety. It's good to see Worldwatch upbeat on this score, and to see them championing economic development; the reality on the ground is that the one thing most likely to make a difference, to make that impact is an aggressive program of development for a clean energy economy, which means massive government and private investment, driving and being driven by the broad consumer base. Certainly the changes needed are possible without that kind of large-scale engagement, but it's the only thing that's likely to provide the critical acceleration at this point. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2008/01/State-of-the-World?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:56:23 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/12/Bushs-About-Face-On-Climate-Change?rsstype=group&gid=1 Well, maybe it's not as surprising as some in the traditional media would like to point out; President Bush officially got on the clean energy bandwagon during his State of the Union Address earlier this year, though he still seemed to be a step behind popular thinking in the alternative energy community. His solution of corn-based ethanol, for instance, had already peaked in terms of potential in 2006 and most of the thinkers were already looking toward cellulosic ethanol or some other novel energy source that doesn't quite offer such a thunderous impact on food prices and arable land. But it is interesting that the US delegation to the Bali Negotiations, for instance, has gotten on board with most of the IPCC's recommendations (though it should be noted that the final recommendations have been watered down a bit, lacking firm date commitments). Something like this happened with the Kyoto Protocol, but the treaty was never sent to the Senate for ratification. Democratic control of the Senate, and a whole new sense of the challenges of global climate change since 1998, should ensure ratification of any treaty that arises from Bali. Meanwhile, Bush himself has signed critical legislation intended to kick-start the process of dragging the US into the 21st century in terms of mileage standards and clean energy initiatives. Critics will say that the legislation does not go far enough to begin to tackle the problem--but it seems unlikely that the problem is one that can be legislated away, in terms small-government conservatives are comfortable with. Part of the critical turn in combating climate change will come only when the general public is convinced to do what it takes on their own to join the fight. The trick, of course, will be to convince people in a way that's going to stick, and it's pretty clear that legislative bullying and extremist fearmongering is not going to get the job done. The good news is, as I've been saying all year, it looks like the public is turning a major corner in doing what needs to get done. Legislation can only ever be part of the solution, and the criticism of the new laws sounds much more like a simple observation; the law does not go far enough, but it cannot go any further without true popular support, or the public will begin to feel the burden of it. A burdened public is usually an uncooperative public, and far more important than a piece of legislation is building a consensus on the direction things need to go. Get the public moving in the right direction, and the legislation is going to be more like a guide, helping everyone along, rather than dragging them into reforms that they'll seek to undo at every turn. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/12/Bushs-About-Face-On-Climate-Change?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:10:47 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/12/BaliBuzz-US-Finally-Dragged-Kicking-And-Screaming-into-UN-Climate-Deal?rsstype=group&gid=1 Apparently the United States delegation to the Bali International Climate Negotiations - well the fake delegation, not the real delegation - has finally been dragged, kicking and screaming, into some kind of agreement on a road map to proceed on post-Kyoto Protocol international climate change negotiations. Details on what that deal is are emerging, and I hope to hear more soon from our correspondent at Bali, Richard Graves. However, for now, this is from Reuters: NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - The United States on Saturday dropped opposition to a compromise plan to launch talks on a new U.N. climate treaty after pleas from other nations. We will go forward and join consensus, Paula Dobriansky, heading the U.S. delegation, told the 190-nation meeting to cheers from many in the audience, minutes after triggering boos by saying Washington was opposed. The proposed compromise, breaking a deadlock between rich and poor nations, had been supported by all other previous speakers, including the European Union. The Bali Negotiations these past two weeks have revealed as the farce it is the US arguments that point the finger at China and other developing nations rising emissions as an excuse for the world's largest emitter* to sit on it's hands while our chances to build a sustainable, just, and prosperous future slip away. This line What about China? has been heard for a decade, every time someone even utters the words international climate agreement or binding emissions reductions in the United States. Well, in the words of Richard Graves, At Bali, the Chinese government and many other developing countries came forward with real proposals to act. They came in all seriousness, recognizing the urgency of action, and the United States and Canada blocked CHINA and other developing countries from acting. If the Bali conference puts a stake in the heart of that dirty little lie, it will at least have done something positive. Check out ItsGettingHotInHere.org for tons of dispatches from Bali, written by several members of the international youth delegation to Bali, the true stakeholders at the negotiations. There's been dozens of posts over the course of the past couple weeks. Look for the BaliBuzz tag in the headlines for stories from Bali. *OK fine, China may have surpassed the US in terms of total annual emissions, but a) the United States effectively offshores all of the emissions associated with the goods we import - much of it from China; and b) since carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, cumulative emissions what drive climate change, and the US is responsible for the most cumulative emissions and will be for some time. So the US is still the nation most responsible for global warming. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/12/BaliBuzz-US-Finally-Dragged-Kicking-And-Screaming-into-UN-Climate-Deal?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:38:30 -0500 bali Canada China climate change climate change policy global warming united nations united nations framework convention on climate change youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/12/The-Reach-of-Cleantech-and-Clean-Energy?rsstype=group&gid=1 To me one of the remarkable things about the very recent and very rapid developments in the adoption of clean energy and cleantech is how widespread it has become. And not only widespread, but cutting across what one might call traditional political and ideological lines. Inherently, cleantech has a sort of appeal that the alternative does not--no one is really that in favor of pouring toxic smoke into the atmosphere for everyone to breather, for instance. No one is in favor of smog, or a return to the bad old days of Pittsburgh's unreformed steel mills when the city hung under a cloud of smoke and nastiness. No one wants miners to die in more coal mine cave-ins, or get blacklung, or what-have-you. So it's not surprising, and yet it is, in that the environmental debate has long been framed in polarized political terms--liberals in favor of increased restrictions and regulations, conservatives against. But that's the critical thing, on a social level, of the pending cleantech revolution. The benefits are no longer explained in terms of increasing restrictions, increasing privation--instead, cleantech promises continuing prosperity, a high standard of living maintained, and just about everyone can get on board with that. For evidence, I don't have to look much further than just outside my front door. I live in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is the conservative heart of the state. The county I live in has gone for George Bush in the last two elections and generally votes Republican across the board. So it's a little surprising, in the light of the right's usual opposition to environmentalism, that the city would have voted to get 20% of its energy from clean sources starting in 2008. Or that I would see custom home builders offering green building know-how. Or that Grand Rapids would be standing alongside traditionally liberal Ann Arbor, Michigan (home of the University of Michigan) in promoting Renewable Portfolio Standards. But it is all happening, and not just in Michigan that way. States that aren't California or New York, and communities that are not San Francisco or Seattle, are stepping up to the plate to take on the challenge of clean energy. Part of the quiet social upheaval has come from energy prices, but it seems more that the realization is sinking in: in order to progress in the new millennium, new ways of procuring energy and better ways of using it are going to have to be found. Whatever the stock market and investment trends say, this is probably the biggest predictor of how the cleantech revolution will turn out. And the outlook seems quite good. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/12/The-Reach-of-Cleantech-and-Clean-Energy?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:20:58 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/11/Old-New-Cycling-Around?rsstype=group&gid=1 The whole cleantech and alt energy movement has seen a number of major throwback concepts; the sod roof, for instance, is making a comeback from its days as a necessity on the lumber-free American prairie. Another, surprisingly, is the sail, millenia old and long ago dumped into the dustbin of technology, suitable only for hobbyists and sports yachters. But a German company, SkySails, is ready to outfit an oceangoing freighter with one of their innovative new sails and launch next month from their home port in the Baltic. The concept is, well, as old as sailboats on the Nile in Ancient Egypt. But the application, of course, is staggering. Now, instead of salty old captains reading the winds and making their adjustments on giant sail rigs, computers will control the play-out on a tow line, linked to a sail 1000 feet above the ocean's surface, guiding it into better winds. Basically, it's an ocean-going hybrid, an answer to rising diesel prices and ever-increasing demand for international shipping. As with the auto industry, it would be nice to see a combination of different approaches being thrown in the direction of the shipping industry in order to lessen the strain it puts on fossil fuel supplies (and prices!) Something like tethered, lighter-than-air wind turbines, for instance, could go a long way to powering an all-electric, or electric hybrid oceangoing freighter. The physics are different, of course, for gas-electric hybrid automobiles and what would be necessary for oceangoing shipping--and wisdom would leave a wholly self-contained propulsion system for adverse weather--but when the total costs of shipping like this are taken into account, the cost in emissions is simply staggering. Some suggest that shipping accounts for twice the emissions of air traffic, and really, any decent reduction is going to give us a little more breathing room in the race to eliminate humanity's carbon footprint. The heartening thing about these kinds of developments, be they throwbacks to a bygone era, or the latest in high technology, is that they're appearing everywhere and gaining much notice; the spirit of willingness and invention in almost every industry worldwide is a sure sign that humanity has taken stock of the problem and is busy working on solutions. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/11/Old-New-Cycling-Around?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:11:53 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/11/Keep-the-Heat-On-and-Focus-the-Nation?rsstype=group&gid=1 [This is a guest post by Alex Tinker:] The powers that be in Washington DC heard loud and clear at Power Shift 2007 this weekend that the Youth Climate Movement will not be sated with lip service and policy band-aids that don't address the true scope of the climate crisis. This movement is made up of hundreds of thousands of dedicated individuals, but dedication alone isn't what's forcing our leaders to listen and act. We must engage millions of constituents across the country, and turn the heat up on every politician who isn't already a leader on climate change. The raw enthusiasm unleashed in the capitol this weekend is just a sliver what's happening nation-wide; what we're witnessing is a movement that will change the world. Wondering what's next? Well in less than 90 days, millions of students, educators, citizens and people of faith will combine the knowledge of academia with the drive our generation has sparked to create the largest teach-in in U.S. history: Focus the Nation, a nationwide day of education and civic engagement on climate solutions on January 31st, 2008.. Not only will we help more people get educated on the issue, we will take that knowledge into a solution-oriented discussion with politicians where we get to grill them on how well educated they are on this crisis. And then, we'll vote on top solutions and send the word back to Washington DC and our state capitols. Will your campus and community make history? Is your community a part of the solution yet? How can you make it happen there? Check out our new Organizer's HQ with all the tools you need to harness this weekend's excitement back at home and lead your community to the brighter, cleaner, more just future we deserve and demand. Consider this a call to all are inspired by this growing momentum to Focus the Nation so we can hit DC with another wave of the ongoing power shift on February 1st. Let's keep the heat on: Focus the Nation! http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/11/Keep-the-Heat-On-and-Focus-the-Nation?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:17:39 -0500 climate change climate change activism climate change policy events Focus the Nation global warming Power Shift 2007 youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/11/Joining-Forces-For-Lower-Emissions?rsstype=group&gid=1 Now, here's a policy that makes a bit of sense. Or, well, potential policy, anyway. As reported in the Detroit Free Press, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has vowed to pursuse $20 Billion in green vehicle bonds for the US auto industry to retool and improve factories if she is elected President in 2008, in exchange for vehicles with higher gas mileage. The bonds would carry low interest, and ancillary proposals in Clinton's overall clean energy package would encourage the purchase of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) like GM's forthcoming Chevy VOLT. Additional monies would be available for research into battery improvements for standard gas-electric hybrids. Ahhh, a policy that makes a little sense. One of the traditional obstacles to raising CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards has been the cost of engineering the vehicles and retooling factories to meet unilateral government demands for increased economy. The primary reason for that has been the little irony that the auto industry's biggest profitmaker--the SUV--will be the hardest to bring into line with stringent CAFE standards, such as the 50mpg average proposed by New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson. The auto industry needs an incentive to step up and make this happen, especially with their liability in terms of retiree health care, and simple demands from the federal government are not going to change the calculus of their current situation. A combination of these green vehicle bonds and perhaps an aggressive health care reform move on the part of a future administration would go great lengths in that direction; the bonds, right now, offer a mighty big carrot for the auto industry all by themselves. It remains to be seen if the traditionally-corporate friendly Republicans can match such a proposal; otherwise, we in the US might well see something unheard of next November: the auto industry and the unions agreeing on a Presidential candidate. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/11/Joining-Forces-For-Lower-Emissions?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:28:15 -0500 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Bill-McKibben-Says-Its-Time-to-Organize-Organize-Organize-for-a-Cleaner-Future?rsstype=group&gid=1 Bill McKibben has three pieces of advice for people who want to make a difference in the fight against global warming: 1: Organize. 2. Organize. 3. Organize, says the well-beloved author, educator, climate activist and co-founder of Step It Up. Only then does he add his fourth piece of advice: After that, if they have some energy left, by all means change the light-bulbs. And to the young climate activists who are putting together a growing and increasingly sophisticated youth climate movement, McKibben says, Keep it up! This weekend, over 5,000 young leaders will converge in Washington D.C. for Power Shift 2007, the first-ever national youth climate summit, organized by the Energy Action Coalition. Back at home, tens of thousands more youth will be joining in hundreds of actions in their home communities as part of the second nationwide Step It Up day of action, November 3rd. Energy Action Coalition and the Power Shift organizing and outreach team caught up with Bill McKibben for a quick interview today to get his perspective on the upcoming youth climate events in DC and around the nation: Energy Action/Power Shift Team: With Power Shift on the horizon, what stage of development do you see the youth climate movement at? Where is it going next? Bill McKibben: This wave has just begun to build, and it's not even close to cresting. This will prove to be the biggest student movement and the biggest social movement in general since the end of the war in Vietnam. What do you consider the youth climate movement's biggest task after Power Shift? I think that it will increasingly join with the broader activist movement around climate change exemplified by the new 1Sky coalition. Important as it is to change campus policies, etc., the real fight is over federal policy. What kind of impact do you see the youth climate movement having on electoral politics (especially the 2008 elections)? How can youth maximize their impact? By making it clear that they are casting their votes on one primary issue the transition to a new energy system. If you could give one piece of advice/say just one thing to the members of the youth climate movement, what would it be? Keep it up! What, in your estimation, will be the biggest deciding factor/have the biggest impact on making positive legislative as quickly as possible? How much political pressure we can muster. So far so good efforts like StepItUp have changed the Capitol Hill debate a lot already, but they are nowhere near where they need to be be. What are you personally working on after Power Shift? We're trying out figure out how to help support an international grass roots movement. When you talk to people about climate change, what do you encourage them to do to make a difference? 1--organize. 2--organize. 3--organize. 4--if they have some energy left, by all means change the light-bulbs. What is your favorite aspect of the 1 Sky Principles? That they've been agreed on by the widest possible range of activists. We have a real chance to have a movement that doesn't factionalize, split apart on the basis of age, etc. Anything else you'd like to add? This weekend the culmination of StepItUp, the glory of Power Shift, the launch of 1Sky will be the most exciting and important few days in the history of the American fight for action against global warming! Thanks Bill for the interview and for all you're doing to help spark a movement, get organized, and make a difference! ____________________________ Bill McKibben is an author, environmentalist, activist and educator. His most recent books are Fight Global Warming Now: The Handbook for Taking Action in Your Community and Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont and the co-founder of Step It Up successfully led the organization of the largest demonstrations against global warming in American history. McKibben and the Step It Up crew are at it again, organizing another nationwide day of actions for this Saturday, November 3rd, 2007. More information, agenda and registration for Power Shift are available at www.powershift07.org and information on Energy Action Coalition is available at www.energyaction.net. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Bill-McKibben-Says-Its-Time-to-Organize-Organize-Organize-for-a-Cleaner-Future?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:48:30 -0400 1 Sky 80 by 2050 climate change climate change activism global warming Power Shift 2007 Step It Up youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Global-Warming-Claims-Island-Community-Displaces-2000-in-Papua-New-Guinea?rsstype=group&gid=1 The 2,000 residents of the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea are now some of the world's first climate change refuges, as rising sea levels driven by global warming have claimed their island homes. The residents of the low-lying South Pacific atolls have given up their 20-year losing fight against rising seas and will be resettled elsewhere in Papua New Guinea. [From Pacific Islands Report:] The Carteret Islands are almost invisible on a map of the South Pacific, but the horseshoe scattering of atolls in eastern-most Papua New Guinea is on the front line of climate change, as rising sea levels and storm surges eat away at their existence. For 20 years, the 2,000 islanders living there have fought a losing battle against the ocean, building sea walls and trying to plant mangroves. Each year, the waves surge in higher, destroying vegetable gardens, washing away homes and contaminating fresh water supplies. [Image: View of Huene Island in the Carteret's. Huene used to be one island but has now been bisected by rising seas. Fallen coconut trees in the foreground (on Iolassa Island) are also caused by the erosion of the coastline. Han Island, the largest in the group is in the distance.] Recently, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare appropriated PGK4.1 million [US$1.4 million] to resettle PNG villagers affected by global warming. The funding was part of a PGK1.6 billion [US$569 million] supplementary budget handed down by Treasury and Finance Minister Patrick Pruaitch. Out of the PGK4.1 million funding, PGK2 million [US$712,000] will go to the Bougainville Autonomous Region's Carteret Islanders. The local Bougainville government has an ongoing resettlement program which it hopes to complete by the end of the year. Rising sea levels will not only displace human populations. Coral reefs are expected to be affected by changes in ocean levels and sea surface temperatures. As a result, the communities that depend upon these marine resources will be affected as well. PNG's Carteret islanders are destined to become some of the world's first climate change refugees. Their islands are becoming uninhabitable, and may soon disappear below the waves. A decision has been made to move the islanders to the larger nearby Bougainville Island, a four-hour boat ride to the southwest. Ten families at a time will be moved once funds are released for the resettlement program. An IPCC has predicted that average sea levels are likely to rise between 9cm and 88cm (3.5 to 35 inches) by 2100. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Global-Warming-Claims-Island-Community-Displaces-2000-in-Papua-New-Guinea?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:03:55 -0400 climate change climate refuges climate risk climate science global warming impacted communities http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/White-House-Puts-the-Muzzle-on-CDC-Testimony-on-Health-Effects-of-Global-Warming?rsstype=group&gid=1 The White House is at it again, censoring expert testimony on Global Warming. This time the Bush Administration cut out over half of Center for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding's Senate testimony on the public health effects of climate change. The White House PR machine first tried to pass the Administration's edits off as minor edits. DeSmogBlog blows away that argument with a comparison between the Gerberding's original testimony and the final version after the White House got through with it. The White House cut the original version down from 3,100 words to only 1,500, completely wiping out whole sections on health related effects due to extreme weather, air pollution-related health effect, allergic diseases, water and food-borne infectious diseases, food and water scarcity and the long term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects. Then the White House shifted tune, saying that they had removed the sections because they conflicted with findings from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Several Congressional Democrats, including Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), promptly called bull$h!t. Boxer's office published a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the deleted sections of Dr. Gerberding's testimony and the IPCC report on how climate change will affect public health. Needless to say, the comparison reveals striking similarities, not conflicting reports. According to NewsDay.com: Both [Dr. Gerberdin and the IPCC] raised virtually identical concerns: heat stress on vulnerable populations; the likelihood of respiratory illnesses from increased air pollution; the spread of waterborne infectious diseases; and more injuries from severe weather events such as wildfires.Nice try President Bush. What's the next lie ... er ... spin , you want to put on this story? [A hat tip to the crew at DeSmogBlog's excellent muckraking.] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/White-House-Puts-the-Muzzle-on-CDC-Testimony-on-Health-Effects-of-Global-Warming?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:39:42 -0400 climate change climate risk climate science federal policy global warming censorship white house bush administration http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Watch-Out-for-the-Echo-Boom-Why-Politicians-Had-Better-Start-Paying-Attention-to-the-Millennial-Generation?rsstype=group&gid=1 80 million teens and twenty-somethings are ready to make their mark on American politics. Is the growing youth climate movement - now poised to explode off campuses and into the nation's capitol for Power Shift 2007, the first national youth climate summit - the vanguard of a new progressive, pro-environment youth political movement? By 2010, another 17.3 million young Americans will come of age, swelling the already sizable ranks of voting-age Millennials those teens and twenty-somethings coming to age in the early years of the 21st century. At 80 million strong, the Millennial generation outnumbers even the Baby Boomers by 3 million and represents the single-largest demographic age group in electoral politics, according to a recent Mother Jones article ( The 50-Year Strategy , in the Nov/Dec 2007 issue - not online yet). Polling data, recent voter turnout, and the swelling ranks and increasing coordination of the youth climate movement all demonstrate that this young generation is remarkably engaged, overwhelmingly progressive and pro-environment, and has largely rejected the government-is-the-problem conservative mentality that still dominates the general population (see table below). General PopulationVoting-age Youth (age 18-25)Issue58%32%agree that the federal government is usually inefficient and wasteful 52%40%say regulating business does more harm than good 49%68%say protecting the environment is at least as important as protecting jobs47%62%favor tax-financed, government-administered universal health care This young generation is razing the old stereotypes of the apathetic, unengaged youth that may have accurately characterized Generation Xers, as youth turnout in the past two elections hit the highest level in at least 20 years. And the Millennials aren't simply waiting for politicians to take notice and seemingly won't content themselves with limiting their impact to the ballot box. In fact, they're demanding to be noticed, as thousands get ready to storm our nation's capitol to flex some political muscle in the first-ever national youth climate summit, Power Shift 2007, and rally at nationwide Step it Up actions in November. According to www.PowerShift07.org, over 3,300 youth and students from across the country will soon explode off of campuses and converge on D.C. for Power Shift 2007, November 2nd-5th. With all 50 states represented, youth attending the conference will engage with solutions to global warming and learn how to effectively put solutions into practice as they cement the core of an increasingly sophisticated and coordinated nationwide youth climate movement. Power Shift's agenda includes issue briefings from leading scientists and policy experts, training sessions, an opportunities fair, and additional networking opportunities, all designed to connect young leaders and use their collective experience to focus action on America's greener, more prosperous future. That same weekend, tens of thousands more student and youth activists will join in hundreds of actions in their home communities as part of the second Step It Up nationwide day of action, Saturday, November 3rd (see www.StepItUp07.org). Founded and organized by a group of Middlebury College students, recent grads, and their mentor, Bill McKibbon, Step It Up successfully organized 1,400 actions across the U.S. involving hundreds of thousands of citizens in their first nationwide day of action, April 14th, 2007. Thanks largely to these highly visible and well-attended actions which demanded Congress step it up and cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050 virtually all of the 2008 Democratic candidates for president are chanting the 80x2050 mantra in their stump speeches these days and striving to out-compete each other for the meanest, greenest energy plan. Sponsorship and support is also building behind bills in Congress that would tackle the climate crisis and put the 80x2050 plan into action. This November, the young minds behind Step it Up 2 will be at it again, this time joined by the thousands of participants at Power Shift 2007 to demand real action to address the climate crisis and secure the future of today's youth. On Monday, November 5th, the youth at Power Shift will carry reports and pictures of the hundreds of Step It Up actions into the offices of their senators and representatives, as thousands of young people descend on Capitol Hill to make their voices heard. If the increasing coordination, sophistication and activism of the youth climate movement is any indication, the Millennial generation has arrived on the political scene, and they are sure to make their mark. According to Mother Jones authors Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden: [The Millennial] generation is politically engaged, votes in high numbers, and leans overwhelmingly Democratic. ... But the millennials' impact will show up beyond the ballot box. Polling data indicate that they are unusually civic minded (they volunteer at the highest level recorded for youths in 40 years, according to one study) and hold a wide range of progressive values ... [they] even believe in government again (Sixty-three percent think government should do more to solve the nation's problems). As the authors conclude, This generation is poised to become the core of a 21st century progressive coalition. It's clearly time for today's politicians to start paying serious attention to the Millennials especially candidates in the 2008 elections. According to Rosenberg and Leyden, if people under age 29 had been the only voters in the 2004 election, John Kerry would have won by a landslide with 372 electoral votes. And in the 2006 midterms, the same age group went for Democrats over Republicans by 22 percent - an almost unheard-of margin. When thousands of young people take to the streets in Step it Up actions and head to D.C. for Power Shift in a couple of weeks, politicians would be wise to take note. If they don't, they just might find themselves looking for a new job, as millions of young voters throw their support behind more progressive, pro-environment candidates committed to ending the climate crisis and protecting the future of the Millennial generation. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Watch-Out-for-the-Echo-Boom-Why-Politicians-Had-Better-Start-Paying-Attention-to-the-Millennial-Generation?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:15:32 -0400 1 Sky 80 by 2050 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Election 2008 energy policy global warming politics Power Shift 2007 Step It Up youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Generation-Anything-But-Quiet-Just-Wait-for-the-Noise-at-Power-Shift-2007?rsstype=group&gid=1 The Youth Climate Movement is poised to explode off of campuses and into our nation's capitol for PowerShift 2007, November 2nd-5th. Thomas Friedman, the popular New York Times columnist, recently labeled teens and twenty-somethings coming to age in the early years of the 21st century the Quiet Generation. Accusing today's young people of being too quiet, too online for [their] own good, and for the country's own good, Friedman went on to say that today's students and youth are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be. (See 'Generation Q' - the Quiet Americans, New York Times, Oct. 10th, 2007) Well, in two weeks, Mr. Friedman and the rest of the nation will hear what this young generation really sounds like, and it will be anything but quiet! More than 3,300 young people will explode off of their campuses and away from the internet, descending in person and in droves on the nation's capitol for Power Shift 2007, the first-ever national youth summit on global warming, November 2nd-5th. Power Shift will bring together thousands of students and youth from all 50 states to wrestle with our generation's greatest challenge and our greatest opportunity: The climate crisis. At the conference, attendees will learn new skills, share ideas, connect with fellow activists and ultimately use their collective experience, enthusiasm and commitment to forge a powerful movement to end the climate crisis and make their innovative and inspiring new vision of a sustainable, just, and prosperous future a reality. The conference will be held November 2nd-5th in College Park, Maryland, just outside of Washington D.C. Power Shift's agenda includes: keynote addresses from seasoned and inspiring activists, politicians, and leaders; up-to-the-minute issue briefings from the nation's leading scientists and policy experts; expert-led training sessions on crucial movement-building skills including organizing, advocacy, and media relations; an opportunities fair featuring some of the country's leading environmental employers; a lobby day on Capitol Hill; and plenty of opportunities for young activists to network and strengthen the bonds of a nationwide youth movement (see www.PowerShift07.org). On Saturday, November 3rd, the activities of the thousands of young people attending Power Shift will join with and be amplified by the hundreds of actions taking place in communities across the nation as part of the second nationwide Step It Up day of action (www.StepItUp07.org). April 14th, the first Step It Up day of action, saw over 1,400 events across the country involving hundreds of thousands of community-members, activists, and yes, youth, all calling for steep cuts in carbon emissions: at least 80% by 2050. The weekend of Power Shift, Step It Up activists will be at it again, and this time they'll be asking who our nation's real leaders are as they challenge politicians again to Step It Up! The attendees at Power Shift will join with the Step It Up organizers on Saturday night for the joint keynote events of both Power Shift and Step It Up. Many thousands more young people who aren't going to make the trip to Power Shift will be back home organizing, recruiting for, and attending Step it Up events in their communities. Wherever there's a successful Step It Up event, you can bet that there's the fire, passion, and innovative ideas of a member of Generation Anything-But-Quiet somewhere behind it. And as if there won't be enough packed into a weekend of organizing, training and action, on Monday, November 5th, more than a thousand youth and students will converge on Capitol Hill to flex their collective political muscle and do exactly what Mr. Friedman seems to think today's young people are too timid to do something most citizens are too timid to do sit face-to-face with their representatives and senators, and speak the truth to power, demanding committed action to end the climate crisis. Monday's giant lobby day will begin with a morning rally on Capitol Hill's West Lawn featuring members of the House and Senate leadership and leaders in the youth climate movement as speakers before teams of young citizens head for scheduled lobbying meetings with House and Senate members from all 50 states. The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has also scheduled a hearing Monday afternoon where young people directly affected by climate change will speak out on the issue. Youth witnesses representing the Arctic north, Appalachia, the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, and other locations will testify on the urgency of the crisis and the importance of bold action. Throughout the Power Shift conference, at lobby day, and at Step It Up events across the nation, young people will join with concerned citizens of all ages to demand Congress takes immediate action to implement the 1Sky Climate Initiative (www.1skycampaign.org/) including: creating 5 million new green jobs in the clean energy sector working to help save 20% of our energy by 2015; immediately freezing climate pollution levels and cutting them at least 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050; and transforming our energy priorities from dirty, depleting, and often-imported fossil fuels to clean, renewable, and local energy sources, beginning with a moratorium on all new coal plants until they can safely dispose of their pollution.Lobby day attendees will also demand that Congress pass a strong energy bill this fall as a down payment on the serious cuts in carbon emissions we urgently need. A bill that includes the best elements of the energy packages passed earlier this year by the House and Senate (including strong fuel economy standards, a national renewable electricity standard, and the reinvestment of federal subsidies from fossil fuels into renewable energy and energy efficiency) will be a critical first step towards the sustainable, just, and prosperous future today's young climate activists are committed to making a reality. After the Power Shift conference and lobby day, students and youth will return to their campuses and communities. They'll probably be temporarily exhausted from all the action, but at the same time, they'll be energized, empowered, and equipped to strengthen their nationwide movement and push for bold solutions on their campuses, in their communities, and in their state and national capitols. How's that for quiet, Mr. Freidman? _________________________ Power Shift is organized by the Energy Action Coalition (www.energyaction.org), an alliance of more than 40 organizations from across the United States and Canada, founded and led by youth to help support and strengthen the student and youth clean energy movement in North America. Energy Action Coalition groups have successfully launched campaigns on over 600 college and high school campuses through the Campus Climate Challenge and successfully won commitments from 400 college and university presidents to work towards complete climate neutrality at their institutions. The blog It's Getting Hot in Here (www.ItsGettingHotInHere.org) is the Energy Action Coalition's outlet for the voices of the growing youth movement on climate change, is regularly visited by tens of thousands of readers from across the globe. For more information on the Energy Action Coalition and its partners in Power Shift 2007: www.powershift07.org www.energyaction.net www.campusclimatechallenge.org www.itsgettinghotinhere.org For information on Step it Up and the 1Sky Campaign: www.stepitup.org www.1skycampaign.org http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Generation-Anything-But-Quiet-Just-Wait-for-the-Noise-at-Power-Shift-2007?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:35:40 -0400 1 Sky 80 by 2050 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Energy policy global warming Power Shift 2007 Step It Up youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Schwarzenegger-Drops-The-Ball--Sort-Of?rsstype=group&gid=1 A couple weeks ago, I mentioned that the Governator had a unique opportunity to push California even further into the forefront on green building and cleantech. The bills up for consideration would have made the USGBC's LEED-Gold standard a requirement for all new government buildings and boosted the minimum energy efficiency for residential construction. Unfortunately, he elected not to sign those bills. He did sign a number of green bills, including a couple that take half-steps toward the goal of pervasive green building in California. Most of the rest of his green legislation slate, however, dealt with other important topics, like water conservation and monitoring of toxic chemicals. So it was far from a defeat for those who want to see California continue to advance in green-ness. Some of the green building-related bills, now law: AB 1109 will boost energy efficiency in indoor lighting; a more sane proposal than outright banning of incandescents, it provides a more open competitive framework for making the changes happen. AB 1470 incentivizes solar water heating system installation to the tune of 200,000 such installations by 2017. A few recycled water-related bills, one that will establish a permit process for those seeking to use recycled water in landscape irrigation, and another that sets out requirements for use of recycled water in toilet flushing in condominiums. Not quite the comprehensive strike many had hoped for, but certainly much better than nothing. Playing the Devil's Advocate, there is some sense in a piecemeal approach in that it doesn't force builders to adopt a dozen new ways of doing things all at once, slapping on a huge jump in builder's cost. Going one piece at a time may give builders and building owners time to adjust to each new change. So the effect of adopting LEED-Gold could be achieved over the next five years of incremental changes. That approach is far from optimal in terms of planting a flag and setting the standard, but it may well get the job done, anyway. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Schwarzenegger-Drops-The-Ball--Sort-Of?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:11:05 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/New-Zealand-Bans-New-Fossil-Fuel-Power-Plants?rsstype=group&gid=1 New Zealand electricity producers face a 10-year moratorium on all new gas- or coal-fired power plants to help the country reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The nation's Prime Minister also commits to 90% renewable electricity by 2025. Electricity producers in New Zealand are now barred from constructing any new fossil fuel power plants for the next ten years, according to Bloomberg.com. New Zealand already produces about 70 percent of its power from non-polluting and renewable energy sources, including wind, hydro-electric and geothermal generators. New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clarke, recently announced intention to commit to 90% renewable electricity by 2025 and the government is blocking construction of new gas-fired power plants to speed investment in wind and geothermal energy. Eventually, the Prime Minister (pictured below) would like to see the country carbon-neutral. I have set out the challenge to our nation to become the first truly sustainable nation on earth to dare to aspire to be carbon neutral, Prime Minister Clarke said. The Prime Minister also gave a brief outline of further goals, which included a 2040 target of reducing by half per capita emissions from transport and widely introducing electric vehicles. She also stated the goal of achieving a net increase in forest area of 250,000 hectares (617,000 acres) by 2020. The long-term benefits of becoming a sustainable nation will spread beyond our national reputation and success in business to benefit all New Zealanders, Prime Minister Clarke added. Both announcements come as the government releases the New Zealand Energy Strategy, the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and the Transport Strategy Implementation Plan. Well there's an example of how you set your priorities if you are truly committed to the sustainable, just, and prosperous energy future we should all be striving for. Complete carbon neutrality is the ultimate objective for developed nations, and New Zealand seems committed to showing us the way. Bravo! http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/New-Zealand-Bans-New-Fossil-Fuel-Power-Plants?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:36:58 -0400 climate change climate change policy Energy policy geothermal global warming New Zealand renewable energy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Governments-Responsibility-To-Cleantech?rsstype=group&gid=1 Here's an intriguing idea: rather than letting market forces work on the question of cleantech and alternative energy, the US federal government should throw its considerable weight behind a massive cleantech and alteng effort--to the tune of $300 billion. Aimed at bringing about rapid and sweeping change to the energy economy--as well as the building, automotive, and electronics industries--such an effort could produce dramatic changes in how we live within a decade or two and perhaps both radically reduce emissions and fossil fuel reliance. Such is the dream of maverick environmentalists Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. Wired's article in the link above does an excellent job of deconstructing the personalities of Nordhaus and Shellneberger, the perceived reaction to their dream, and the book which is based on it, Break Through. They occupy an intriguing middle ground--on the one hand, far to the left of those who suggest that any such changes can happen purely on the basis of market forces. While it's apparent that the market is shifting dramatically--more TV ads pimping comapnies' green profile, easier access to energy efficiency and alternative energy products, and an auto industry at least half serious about providing gasoline alternatives--they have a point in that it may not shift far enough, fast enough. What the changes in the market are hinting at, however, is that the public may be more receptive to a giant effort such as this--especially when placed in the context of other spending, such as the war, which gets funded periodically to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars at a time. On the flip side, they seem intent on alienating other environmentalists, by suggesting that the way forward is through advanced technological development. And it is true that a strong section of the environmental movement is made by those who would rather see less technology in play; a simpler life for all, as it were, and a more natural interdependence with the environment as a whole. But often, these elements have secondary agendas that are a lot less pragmatic--or popular--than the greening effort itself. At this point, the environmental movement has to be decoupled from some of these other agendas because they are not going to sell well in middle America--or even in the developing nations in the East. And on the surface, it's a compelling argument. I'll be evaluating the book itself, and posting reports here, to see if it does hold up, or if they're doing nothing more than trying to anger everyone to no gain. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/10/Governments-Responsibility-To-Cleantech?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:43:38 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Schwarzeneggers-Opportunity?rsstype=group&gid=1 Will he or won't he? Governor Schwarzenegger of California has a unique opportunity coming up. Right now, three bills sit on his desk that could blaze a brand new trail for green building standards in the United States and help cement California's place in the lead on environmental issues. Not that they haven't been there for years and years, but green building is one of those areas that not enough people are paying attention to in terms of potential climate change impact. For example, though some have mocked the banning of incandescent lightbulbs in Australia as too draconian, a less visible regulation such as one requiring builders only install CFL lighting in new homes would itself have a tremendous impact on energy use and emissions. I count almost 40 internal light fixtures in my (rather modest) home, about half of which I've changed to CFL at this point. Starting out with CFL, which would add maybe $80 to builders' costs could save the homebuyer money and significantly reduce emissions. Other measures are just as easy and just as affordable. David Walls of the Building Standards Commission in California has opposed the bills, and claims that they wouldn't change much of what the BSC is already doing. First of all, I find that a little hard to believe, even with California's green provenance. No state has adopted even EnergyStar standards as code for new buildings, much less USGBC LEED standards, and so it seems unlikely that California codes already require compliance that is competitive. Otherwise it would not be a big deal when a new building qualified. The idea, of course, is to make it not newsworthy at all when a new building or development complies with these standards, but the opposite: to make it newsworthy when one fails. At this point, there's little reason why buildings should not be built to a higher degree of efficiency, even if it's not the maximum possible (such as those cute 80 square foot homes). Building codes are seriously underperforming in terms of minimum required efficiency, and it looks like government regulation is the only way that's going to change. As usual, the rest of the US has to look to California for leadership, but hopefully Schwarzenegger continues to provide that kind of leadership where so many other politicians have failed. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Schwarzeneggers-Opportunity?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:59:42 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Look-Whos-Writing-Global-Warming-Legislation-Hint-Its-Not-Who-You-Might-Want4501?rsstype=group&gid=1 Hill Heat's the Cunctator takes a look at which 'congress critters' have been writing global warming legislation, and it's probably not who you'd want! When it comes to perhaps the most important legislation of the century - legislation to solve the climate crisis - who's holding the pen? You would hope it would be people like Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair, Senator Barbara Boxer, or House climate change champion Henry Waxman. Well, while the two have sponsored the best climate change proposals currently floating around Congress, it's unfortunately not the likes of Boxer and Waxman who are drafting the default global warming legislation that will likely be taken up by both the House and Senate this fall/winter. According to the Cunctator, it's actually the pro-coal, pro-Detroit, anti-environment type who's got the pen, and that spells trouble for all of us. From the Cunctator's DailyKos journal: In the House, jurisdiction over cap-and-trade legislation is under Energy and Commerce chairman John Dingell and Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee chair Rick Boucher. In the Senate, Harry Reid and EPW chair Barbara Boxer are letting Joe Lieberman and John Warner write the default global warming bill. -Dingell literally represents Detroit. His wife works for General Motors. -Boucher is a coal-district representative who supports coal-to-liquids and tried to make California's greenhouse gas emissions law illegal. -Lieberman used to be a Democrat. -Warner has a 14% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters. Unless they're stopped, these people will write polluter-protection legislation. ... Carbon cap-and-trade legislation cannot be progressive if the greenhouse gas emissions credits (the pollution credits) are given to polluters. That protects polluting industries with a subsidizing give-away of a common resource, the atmosphere's capacity for GHG pollution. If the credits are auctioned, however, polluters have to pay. Furthermore, this means that the taxpayers of the United States receive the fair market value of privatizing this resource (as long as the government properly allocates the auction revenues). The bipartisan Lieberman-Warner climate change proposal currently plans to give away 76% of the emissions allowances under the cap for free. The proposal would amount to a giant wind-fall for polluters, violating the polluter-pays principle that's key to effective environmental legislation and essentially giving away a public good - the atmosphere - for free. Additionally, the emissions reduction targets in the Lieberman-Warner proposal are mediocre and are a slow start to cleaning up our act. Unlike Boxer and Waxman's proposals, the Lieberman-Warner proposal doesn't put us on a track to a carbon neutral and prosperous America, which should be our ultimate target. Lieberman recently indicated he's thinking about reducing the amount of allowances given away for free (and auctioning more of them), but at this point he's just thinking about it. And so far, the mediocre emissions reduction targets haven't budged. As Adam Siegel writes, with the likes of Dingell, Boucher, Lieberman and Warner in the drivers seat, we -- that means you -- should be contacting your representatives to influence the process. Start with, if you wish, Congress.ORG, write your representative, send in a letter to the editor [and I would add, send a letter to Lieberman too]. Action items for today's letter: 1. Support Citizen, not special interest, Ownership of Pollution Credits -- it is our air that we are seeing polluting, make them pay us for dirtying our air. NO GIVEAWAYS OF POLLUTION CREDITS in Climate Change legislation. 2. The 2050 target: a Climate Friendly Prosperous Society that will enhance human security for millenia to come. 70% by 2050 is, simply, slowing the onset of catastrophic climate change. 80% is an absolute minimum, 90% becomes reasonable, and Carbon Neutrality (actually carbon negative) should be our target. Let us reach high, for the sky, and protect ourselves and future generations. Other people to contact: Senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee * Barbara Boxer (Chairman) * Max Baucus * Joseph I. Lieberman * Thomas R. Carper * Hillary Rodham Clinton * Frank R. Lautenberg * Benjamin L. Cardin * Bernard Sanders * Amy Klobuchar * Sheldon Whitehouse Environmental Lobbying Groups (most haven't taken a public position on auctions and targets or on specific proposals) * Environmental Defense * League of Conservation Voters * U.S. PIRG * Sierra Club * NRDC * Union of Concerned Scientists As Seigel writes, Act ... Now ... If not us, who? If not now, when? http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Look-Whos-Writing-Global-Warming-Legislation-Hint-Its-Not-Who-You-Might-Want4501?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:22:34 -0400 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Energy policy federal policy global warming http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/APEC-Drafts-Climate-Change-Resolution?rsstype=group&gid=1 In a rather dramatic statement this week, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit seemed to come to a consensus on a draft statement regarding the energy intensity goals for the member nations. Meeting in Sydney, the 21member nations have sought to come to an energy intensity reduction agreement as a cornerstone to the summit. The draft is a compromise between the rich and developing nations, though somewhat a victory fo the United States and Australia which sought to get China to agree to firmer goals than they agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol. The non-binding resolution would seek to bring reductions of 25% energy intensity by 2030, in line with what many other nations and American states have proposed or mandated on their own. Although it would be nice to see a global standard set forth and negotiated by a body such as the UN, the drama surrounding the Kyoto Protocol--and the subsequent shortfall on goals in many signatory nations--highlights some of the problems with trying to draft a response to global climate change for the entire world. This more regional approach seems much more likely to succeed, as it allows neighboring nations to negotiate with each other and set policy for their region. While it's certainly possible that such an approach could let some nations or areas slip through the cracks, it may also collect up nations--such as the United States--that don't often show all possible respect to global bodies, such as the UN. As it seems that localities and states in the US are mounting energy reduction schemes more effectively than the federal government, so it may seem that nations and relatively small treaty organizations may produce resolutions more effective than the UN or other global initiatives. These efforts should be applauded, so long as they don't create dramatic imbalances in the application of solutions. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/APEC-Drafts-Climate-Change-Resolution?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:06:05 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Bjorn-Lomborgs-quotCool-Itquot-Spouts-More-Hot-Air?rsstype=group&gid=1 Like his earlier work, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which prominent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson called a sordid mess and was found to have cherry-picked the facts, Bjorn Lomborg's latest effort, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming is just more hot air. Lomborg's basic thesis, that scare-monger environmentalists have over-hyped the threat of climate change and that we shouldn't take any serious action to tackle the climate crisis because doing so would harm economic growth that poor people need requires a particularly slanted view of the world and rests on 'facts' selectively picked to support his arguments as he ignores a vast body of science. As economist Eban Goodstein's writes in his review of Cool It in Salon: In Cool It, Lomborg has three messages. First, the planet will warm up no more than 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit this century, and on balance, this will be bad, but not too bad. Second, all benefit-cost models show that serious limits on global warming emissions are too costly, and therefore we should pollute with virtual impunity. And -- surprisingly -- we should invest a decent amount ($25 billion per year) in clean energy technologies now so that, starting in a few decades, we will have tools to slow down global warming just a little bit through 2100. While I can't agree more with the third point, his first two messages are quite frankly bull sh!t. Lomborg's first argument assumes that global warming will be held to only 4.7 degrees F. First off, that's a swing of temperatures halfway to ice age proportions (the last ice age was only 9 degrees F colder than today). Not a big deal, eh? Lomborg argues that as the temperatures heat up, deaths from heat waves will be offset by less deaths from cold exposure. This contradicts the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's authoritative Fourth Assessment Report, released earlier this year. The report does agree that cold deaths will decrease with warming, but says that while climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure ... overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health benefits of rising temperatures, especially worldwide (see pdf). So sure, Mr. Lomborg, less people will die of cold exposure in rich countries in Northern climes. But at the same time, the IPCC report warns that literally billions of people will be affected by water and food shortages, droughts, floods, storms, etc. People in poorer developing countries, the people Lomborg supposedly cares so much about, will be most severely affected. For more on the human face of climate change that Lomborg's cold calculus brushes aside, see this post. These aren't the made-up scenarios of fear-mongering environmentalists. They're the warnings of an international body of the world's top climate scientists, literally hundreds of them, and the report they produced is truly a consensus document; every word in the summary for policymakers report I referenced above (pdf) has to be approved by representatives of 130+ countries (including representatives of the Bush Administration)! In fact, throughout his book, Lomborg cites the IPCC report like gospel, all the while selectively ignoring much that doesn't serve his arguments. For example, in assuming that temperatures will not warm by more than 4.7 degrees, despite the inaction that he advocates, he ignores the fact that the IPCC includes a range of temperature estimates going all the way up to 10.5 degrees. The most crucial error in the book - the most glaring oversight that disqualifies the book as a serious examination of the risks and tradeoffs of climate change - is that Lomborg ignores the existence of powerful climate feedback loops hidden within the climate system. As Eban Goodstein writes,: The global warming alarmism that Lomborg finds so distasteful is motivated by a serious, science-driven concern that hidden within our global climate system are powerful positive feedback loops. So that as we inch up from 3 to 4 and then 4 to 5 degrees of warming, we may very well cross some temperature threshold that would trigger a couple of degrees of further warming, causing a catastrophic upward spiral in global temperatures. For example, if the Amazon heats up and dries out too much, much of it could burn down, flipping to savannah, and releasing tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Similarly, as the permafrost in the Arctic melts, a huge pulse of methane may be released. The science is clear that, interacting, these and other biophysical and socioeconomic factors could drive planetary temperatures far beyond the range that Lomborg addresses. By ignoring the vast uncertainty underlying these forecasts, and every alternative outcome except his preferred moderate warming scenario, Cool It reduces to an uninteresting discussion of why folks alive today should choose 4.7 degrees of warming rather than 4.4 as the optimal outcome for our grandkids. But there is no sound scientific reason to assume that as we sit inactively, following Lomborg's advice, that temperatures will stop rising at 4.7 degrees. In fact, there is every reason to worry that if we don't begin a proactive, concerted effort to halt warming temperatures within the next few years, we will lock ourselves in to a degree of warming that will push us past what America's top climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, calls 'the Tipping Point' where temperatures and greenhouse gas levels will have increased enough to set off a chain reaction of these feedback loops that will push global warming beyond our control. Once we pass the Tipping Point, warming will simply spin out of control and no matter what we do, we won't be able to halt or reverse the changing climate. We could stop using all fossil fuels entirely, but if we did it one day after crossing the Tipping Point - think of it as the Point of No Return - it wouldn't do a damn bit of good. But don't take my word for it. Let's hear what Dr. Hansen has to say: In my opinion, he testified in 2006, there is no significant doubt (probability 99%) that projections for warming in a business-as-usual future (one that Lomborg advocates) would push the Earth beyond the tipping point and cause dramatic climate impacts including eventual sea level rise of at least several meters, extermination of a substantial fraction of the animal and plant species on the planet, and major regional climate disruptions. Translation: unless we act soon to change course and avoid this business as usual future, we will almost certainly pass the Point of No Return. By ignoring this fundamental and critical characteristic of climate systems, Lomborg's thesis that waiting to tackle climate change until technology develops is fundamentally flawed. In a supposed 'rational discussion' of risks, trade-offs and benefits of climate change, Lomborg ignores the biggest risk of all: that in sitting idle, we will cross the Tipping Point. As a result, Lomborg advocates for delayed action against climate change, essentially arguing that we play Russian roulette with our lives and the fate of all future inhabitants of the planet. There are other flaws with Lomborg's book, and I'd encourage you to read Goodstein's review for more, but I'll leave it at that for now. Don't pick up Lomborg's book unless you're looking for more misleading, heel-dragging hot air. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Bjorn-Lomborgs-quotCool-Itquot-Spouts-More-Hot-Air?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:41:46 -0400 book reviews climate change climate risk global warming http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/The-Human-Face-of-Climate-Change-Or-Why-Im-Fasting-Today?rsstype=group&gid=1 When you think about the climate crisis, which of these two images stands out as the face of climate change? Chances are, the polar bear cub is more closely associated with global warming in your mind than the two Sudanese children on the right. Global warming may threaten one quarter to one half of all species on the planet with extinction if left unchecked, and the unprecedented human-caused loss of so many of our cousins on this small blue globe certainly conjures up images of one of the most charismatic species threatened by our warming planet: the polar bear. But what about the human face of climate change? Global warming certainly poses an unprecedented environmental and ecological catastrophe and preserving the habitats and species threatened by the climate crisis may be motivation enough to tackle the challenge. But the climate crisis doesn't just threaten cute and cuddly animals and their less charismatic cousins. I would argue that the real face of climate change is, or should be, a human face. The second of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports released this year detailed the human impacts and vulnerabilities of climate change and it painted a bleak picture of starvation, thirst and extreme weather impacts (see pdf). Today, I join over eleven hundred others in the Climate Emergency Fast to raise awareness of these human impacts of climate change. Today, as Congress returns from recess and Americans return to work after a long Labor Day weekend, hundreds of us will make a small sacrifice to send a message: It's time for our leaders, at all levels of government, to take action to solve the climate crisis! Today, will feel hunger and remember that as global warming intensifies, it will bring with it much more extensive hunger worldwide, especially in poorer countries, as drought, intense storms, glacial melting and sea level rise take their toll. Many are begin fasts today that will last much longer than one day. Join me today in taking a closer look at the human face of climate change. Hunger, Thirst, Floods and Disease: the Human Impacts of Climate Change As the world gets hotter by degrees, millions of poor people will suffer from hunger, thirst, floods and disease unless drastic action is taken. That was the Associated Press's summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) second working group report, entitled Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (pdf). The report, released in April by the IPCC, a UN network of thousands of climate scientists, details the impacts of climate change, particularly those affecting human populations. The report is a true consensus document assembled by literally thousands of scientists and unanimously approved by the 120-plus governments that participate, including representatives of the Bush Administration. Despite the high level of consensus required of the document, and a deadline-busting contentious final editing session described by the AP article, the IPCC report was nonetheless the strongest authoritative warning that all the world's nations must take concrete actions to address the climate crisis or hundreds of millions of human lives will be impacted, impoverished or lost. The picture the report paints is bleak, yet preventable, and we should use it to help keep in mind the human face of climate change. Here's what the report warns is in store if we do not rise to the climate challenge: Water shortages: water is the stuff of life, yet climate change will mean water shortages and reduced water supplies for literally billions of people. The IPCC reports that while total annual water availability may increase in higher latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, water supplies will likely decrease in already dryer and water-stressed regions. Drought-stricken areas will increase and droughts are projected to become more severe. Additionally, warming temperatures will mean less precipitation falls as snow, being captured in snowpack and glaciers. This will make river flows more seasonal and make summer months - when snow and glacier melt traditionally keeps rivers flowing - more prone to drought while increasing the incidence of winter and spring flooding. According to the IPCC, water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover will decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges including the Himalayas in Asia, the Andes in South America and the Cascades/Sierras and Rockies in North America. This could affect areas home to one-sixth of the total world population! The IPCC projects that between 75 and 250 million Africans will face increased water shortages due to climate change and more than a billion people in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia will be adversely affected by reduced freshwater availability. Water security problems in Australia, already a consistent problem, are projected to intensify by 2030 and areas in the United States' Dessert Southwest will face more frequent and severe drought. When coupled with growing populations and increasing standards of living, demand for clean, fresh water will clearly increase, putting further stress on water supplies reduced by climate change. Food and Famine: Reduced water supplies not only threaten drinking water availability, but also present a clear problem for agriculture. The IPCC projects that while on average, worldwide crop productivity may increase slightly with the first couple degrees of warming, further warming will mean crop yields will likely plummet and regional yields, especially in seasonally dry equatorial areas, are projected to decrease even with small temperature increases. As would be expected, more frequent and severe droughts and floods (see above) are projected to ravage local agricultural activities. Agricultural production in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change, the IPCC reports, which would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition on the continent. In some countries, agricultural yields may be cut in half, the IPCC reports. Crop yields may increase by up to 20% in East and Southeast Asia while falling up to 30% in Central and South Asia by mid-century, the IPCC reports. Taken together, the report says, and considering the influence of rapid population growth and urbanization, the risk of hunger is projected to remain very high in several developing countries in Asia. Productivity from agriculture is projected to decline over much of Australia's southern and eastern regions, home to the large bulk of the country's population and it's major breadbasket. This summer, Australians got a sneak preview of what's to come, as their Prime Minister told them to pray for rain as prolonged drought forced Australians to consider cutting off water for irrigation in order to supply drinking water for urban areas. This year, just enough rain fell in June and July to forestall this dire outcome, but will Australian's be so lucky in years to come? Rising seas: The IPCC report predicts that coastal areas will be exposed to increased coastal erosion due to climate change and the resulting sea-level rise and the effect will be exacerbated by increased population pressures along coastal areas. Coastal wetlands, important flood and storm protection barriers, will be lost to rising seas at the same time they are being lost to human development activities, making coastal populations more vulnerable to hurricanes, tsunamis and monsoons. Many millions more people are expected to be flooded every year due to sea level rise, the report projects. Densely-populated low-lying areas like the 'mega-delta' areas of Asia and African including broad areas of Bangladesh, India and China will b particularly vulnerable, as will small, low-lying islands. Whole island nations may be lost and their populations relocated. As usual, adaptation in poorer, developing countries will be more difficult, placing these populations at higher risk. Spreading diseases and death: Climate change is expected to negatively affect the health of millions of people, particularly in poorer countries through:-increased malnutrition; -increased death, disease and injury from heat waves, floods, storms, fires, droughts and other extreme weather events; -increases in diarrhoeal disease; -increased heart and respiratory diseases due to high concentrations of ground-level ozone and smog due to rising temperatures; -several infectious diseases, including malaria, will be wider spread due to increased habitable areas of important vectors like mosquitoes.The report does note that climate change will likely bring fewer deaths from cold exposure, but these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures worldwide, especially in developing countries. Flood, fire, heatwaves and storms: Extreme weather events including floods, forest fires, heatwaves and hurricanes are all expected to become either more frequent or more intense as the planet warms. So we've got thirst, famine, disease, floods, droughts, and storms - all some pretty Biblical stuff with millions of human lives caught in the cross hairs. I don't write all of this to depress us - the good news is that much of this is still avoidable, including the worst affects of climate change, if we act now. I write this to remind us that the face of climate change is a very human face indeed. Literally billions of humans will be negatively affected by the climate crisis, with those in poorer, developing countries feeling the brunt of the warming world's effects. So next time you think about climate change, don't just think about the loss of countless species, some even as cute and cuddly as penguins and polar bears. Their loss is a tragedy, one that climate change activist and economist Eban Goodstein eloquently argues will impoverish our economy, our lives and our very spirit. Massive species extinction presents a clear moral imperative and a primary motivation for tackling the climate change. But remember that their is also another, very human face to the climate crisis. If left unchecked, climate change will takes its toll on billions of our fellow humans, devastating the lives of many millions. I fast today to remember this human face of the climate crisis and to urge our leaders to take this crisis as seriously as I do, to take action now, and to rise to the challenge and seize the tremendous opportunity the climate crisis presents. The dark future described in the IPCC report hangs over us, but another future is possible, a brighter future where the climate crisis is the catalyst for a sustainable, just energy future. It is up to each one of us to decide which future we want to live in, and make that future a reality. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/The-Human-Face-of-Climate-Change-Or-Why-Im-Fasting-Today?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:54:34 -0400 climate change climate change activism climate change policy climate risk federal policy global warming Warnings From a Warming World http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Warnings-From-a-Warming-World-Hurricane-Felix-Makes-Landfall-as-Second-Category-5-Hurricane-in-Two-Weeks?rsstype=group&gid=1 Making landfall today as a devastating Category 5 storm, Hurricane Felix is the second Cat 5 Atlantic hurricane to make landfall in as many weeks, carving a path of destruction across Central America. As Chris Mooney points out at the Daily Green, Nature isn't messing around this year in the Atlantic hurricane basin. So far, we've already seen six named storms and two hurricanes, both making landfall as devastating Category 5 storms, shattering records and making landfall within two weeks of each other. And there's still a long way to go until the 2007 hurricane season has subsided. Like Hurricane Dean, which ripped across Mexico's Yucatan Penninsula on August 21st (see previous post), Hurricane Felix hit the coast of Nicaragua with Category 5 strength (Hurricane Katrina was made landfall near New Orleans as a Category 4 storm, for comparison), shattering several records. Also like Hurricane Dean, the appearance of a second, record-breaking storm in as many weeks must give us pause to not only acknowledge the destruction it has wrought as it cuts a swathe across Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, but also to worry about what else this year's hurricane season might have in store as we ponder the connection between global warming and a disturbing trend of intensifying hurricanes. 2007 Hurricane Season Just Heating Up Offical estimates call for an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season and predict 13-16 named storms (Felix is just the sixth so far this season). The peak months of the Atlantic hurricane season are August through October, so the season has just begun in earnest. Chris Mooney worries that we might be seeing intense hurricane clustering in the Carribean. Sometimes the winds and water just set up in such a way that a particular stretch of ocean gest repeated Category 4 and 5 storms, Mooney explains. The phenomenon occurence in the Cook Islands in 2005, with four intense hurricanes in just over a month, and similarly off the coast of the Phillipeans in 2006. Could a similar phenomenon be occurring in the Caribbean this year? Only time will tell. Additionally, if a storm enters the Gulf of Mexico this year, there is a disturbing arrow of hot sea surface temperatures currently pointing directly at Louisiana. Hurricane intensity is fueled by warm water temps and the current map of sea surface temps means that if winds and other conditions line up, sea temps could fuel another intense storm making landfall on the Gulf Coast. [Image source: NOAA] Hurricane Felix Sets Records Like Hurricane Dean, Hurricane Felix has set, or led to the adjustment, of several records, some of them very disturbing. Chris Mooney has a list:1. Fastest intensification from a tropical depression to a Category 5 hurricane around 51 hours. (This is apparently an Atlantic record only.) [Note: storms normally take weeks to intensify from a tropical depression to a Category 1 hurricane] 2. Second-fastest pressure fall in 12 hours (50 millibars), third-fastest in 24 hours (63 millibars). Again, apparently this is an Atlantic-only record. 3. 13th full Category 5 hurricane landfall in the Atlantic region. Others include 1935's Labor Day storm, 1969's Camille, 1992's Andrew, and 2007's Dean. 4. Felix makes 2007 only the fourth known Atlantic hurricane season to have more than one Category 5 hurricane. The others are 1960, 1961, and 2005. 5. Felix makes 2007 the only known Atlantic hurricane season to have two full Category 5 landfalls. 6. Felix makes 2007 the only known Atlantic hurricane season in which the first two storms to reach hurricane status (Dean, Felix) have also reached Category 5 status and gone on to Category 5 landfalls. Making the Global Warming Connection As with Hurricane Dean, we cannot blame global warming for Hurricane Felix, nor for any single extreme weather event. However, hurricane intensity is fueled by warm ocean temperatures, and the recent up-tick in intense Category 4 and 5 storms is consistent with scientific predictions based on basic thermodynamics and higher ocean temperatures due to global warming. In his typical cautious fashion, Chris Mooney points out that No single storm tells us anything, but on the other hand, both of these storms fit a troubling pattern. To be more specific: After not having one since Andrew in 1992, we are now expected to see two Category 5 Atlantic basin hurricane landfalls in the space of 2 weeks. There have now been eight Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the past five years (Isabel, Ivan, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Dean, Felix) There have been two Atlantic Category 5s so far this year; only three other seasons have had more than one (1960, 1961, 2005) There have been eight Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes so far in the 2000s; no other decade has had so many. The closest runner up is the 1960s with six (Donna, Ethel, Carla, Hattie, Beulah, Camille). Mooney goes on to caution that it is likely that we failed to record at least a few Category 5 storms in earlier decades due to poorer instrumentation and observation systems. However, even with that caveat, we've got to recognize that this decade has been clearly anomalous when compared to previous decades (and it's far from over yet). Is it fair for us to point the finger at global warming for this disturbing trend? Well, it will take more time to demonstrate that this trend of intensifying storms holds true, and a lot more work to show conclusively that this trend is due to global warming. However, climate scientists clearly predict global warming will bring higher sea surface temperatures and the resulting intensification of hurricanes and tropical storms, and the recent monster storms we've seen in the Atlantic and around the world have fit predictions to a T. As Chris Mooney writes, at some point, it seems to me that people will simply have to throw up their hands and say: We are in a new place now. Interested in learning more about what we can and can't say about extreme weather events and global warming? Pick up Chris Mooney's new book, Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. [Image source: top right - Weather Underground; second right - Wikipedia] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/09/Warnings-From-a-Warming-World-Hurricane-Felix-Makes-Landfall-as-Second-Category-5-Hurricane-in-Two-Weeks?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:42 -0400 climate change climate risk global warming Warnings From a Warming World http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/UK-Liberal-Democrats-Call-for-Carbon-Neutral-Britain?rsstype=group&gid=1 Last week, I argued that the right national target in the fight against global warming should be complete carbon neutrality. Apparently the UK's Liberal Democrats party has the same target in mind! Calling for a 100 per cent carbon free Brtain by 2050, the UK's Liberal Democrats party unveiled a series of proposals yesterday aimed at transforming Britain into an international leader in the fight against the climate crisis. Pollution doesn't respect national boundaries, said Liberal Democrat party leader, Menzies Campbell. Climate change is a global problem that requires an international solution. Britain should not be a bit player in finding that solution; we should be leading the pack. The Liberal Democrats, the UK's third largest political party (wikipedia entry here for ignorant yanks like me), will debate the proposals, outlined in a paper called Zero Carbon Brtain - Taking a Global Lead, at their party conference in Brighton next month. The plan calls for: Major improvements to the rail network and the construction of a high speed rail line, paid for by tolling lorries [trucks] on motorways A commitment to 100 per cent carbon free, non-nuclear electricity by 2050 The use of green taxes to make the polluter pay, using the revenue to cut income tax Introducing green mortgages' to enable people to make their homes more energy efficient With these policies the Liberal Democrats have become the first major British party to map out the route to a carbon neutral Britain, Campbell said. And the first to plan the way towards a cleaner global environment too. This ambitious objective for zero-carbon Britain would put us in the global lead in tackling climate chaos, said Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary and Member of Parliament, Chris Huhne. Just as crucially, Huhne said, we have set out plans that are the first attempt of any British political party to tackle carbon emissions from every part of the economy: transport, energy, housing, offices and factories. The time for talk has passed; we need action. Well at least one yank is wondering (again) why we don't have instant run-off voting/preferential voting here in the U.S. (as they do in Australia) - or at least some system that allows viable 3rd parties. The Liberal Democrats, a left-leaning social liberal party and Britain's third largest political party, routinely receives around 20% of the votes in general elections, and while the UK's first past the post system under-represents them in parliament, the Lib Dems, as they are often abbreviated, still captured 62 seats in the House of Commons (about 10% of the 659 seats in the House). In the U.S., we can only dream of a strong third party with seats in Congress that has the strength and position to take up a bold position on climate change, call for a carbon neutral America, and begin to shift the tenor of national and congressional debates on the climate crisis. Without a strong two-party system that leaves little room for viable third parties, we in the U.S. will have to focus our attention on the two main political parties and do our best interject our rallying cry of a carbon neutral America into the mainstream. Bravo to the Liberal Dems for taking a bold stand and setting an example for other political parties across the world! I'll raise a glass of gin to you chaps tonight... http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/UK-Liberal-Democrats-Call-for-Carbon-Neutral-Britain?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:23:45 -0400 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Energy policy global warming United Kingdom http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Putting-Aside-Percentages---the-Right-Target-in-the-Fight-Against-Global-Warming-is-Carbon-Neutrality?rsstype=group&gid=1 A new rallying cry for the climate solutions movement: A carbon neutral future for ourselves and our children! When it comes to fighting global warming, there tends to be a lot of different percentages and years thrown around: California is planning to reduce global warming pollution 25% by 2020; Oregon's legislature adopted 10% below 1990 levels as the state's 2020 objective; bills floating around Congress push targets ranging from a mere return to 1990 pollution levels by 2020 to a cut of 80% by 2050. Lost amidst all of these percentages and years, those of us committed to building a movement for solutions to the climate crisis have struggled to find a rallying cry. In an effort to 'mainstream' the currently-most-aggressive legislation in Congress, the nationwide Step it UP day of action rallied behind a call for Congress to 'Step it UP!' and cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050. Step it UP was arguably quite successful in this goal: co-sponsorship and support for the Boxer-Sanders and Waxman climate change bills, which call for an 80% reduction, has been building and all of the major Democratic 2008 presidential candidates have now adopted the 80% by 2050 target as part of their platform (with some upping the ante with a call for a 90% reduction). Step it UP 2, scheduled for November 3rd, plans to reiterate the 80% by 2050 target while adding a few new planks to the call for action. But amidst all this talk of percentages, is the '80% by 2050' target that has become the de facto rallying cry for our movement the 'right' target? Will it be enough to get the job done and solve the climate crisis? Will it be an adequate rallying cry to inspire a popular movement? Now that the 80% by 2050 call has become mainstream, it's time for a serious discussion about whether or not its' time for a new, more inspiring, more aggressive rallying cry. Carlos Rymer recently posted an excellent discussion on what the 'right' target is, scientifically speaking. There's a strong argument to be made that even an 80% reduction by 2050 will be too little, too late, to give us better-than-even odds of avoiding catastrophic consequences of climate change. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to bet the future of the world, to bet my future and my children's future on coin flip odds! Carlos concludes that a 95% reduction by 2030 is probably necessary in the developed world, in order to do our part to reduce per-capita emissions to an appropriate level. I think Carlos is right on in calling for a more aggressive target, and as he concludes at the end of his post, a call for 95% reductions is, practically speaking, the same as a call for 100% reductions, or complete carbon neutrality. David Roberts over at GristMill agrees, and proposes a replacement rallying cry: Children born today should live to see a U.S. that produces no climate pollution. Scientifically speaking, a call for complete carbon neutrality - no more human caused global warming pollution than human efforts to absorb and sequester global warming pollution can remove from the atmosphere - is a much more sound target than an 80% reduction by 2050. We ultimately need to model our energy and industrial systems on natural systems: what we put in the atmosphere must not exceed what we can safely remove from the atmosphere - through reforestation efforts, for example. A call for complete carbon neutrality is also a more inspiring and aggressive rallying point than the 'wonky' call for 80% reduction in global warming pollution by 2050. Jefferson Smith of the Oregon Bus Project, the MC for the April 14th Step it UP! rally in downtown Portland, Oregon, got plenty of laughs out of the mouthful that slogan presents: What do we want? he shouted, to which the crowd, at his jocular coaching, responded: An 80% reduction in global warming pollution! When do we want it? By the year 2050 or preferably sooner! This was followed by plenty of laughs at the inadequacy of such a lengthy and wonky 'rallying cry.' But self-effacing jokes aside, this dilemma isn't something we should laugh off lightly. Building the strength and momentum of a powerful climate solutions movement will require an inspiring and aggressive rallying cry, something people can latch on to, something with emotional (not merely intellectual) appeal, something that will help redefine what is politically possible. Unfortunately, I don't think the '80% by 2050' call for action fits those criteria (at least not any longer). So let's put aside the percentages and the target years. Let's put aside the wonky mathematics. We can leave the targets and the years to the policy wonks who will attempt to translate our powerful call for a climate neutral future into concrete policy proposals. Instead, let's pick up a rallying cry that appeals to the heart, a rallying cry that inspires, that motivates and that shifts the discussion of what is politically possible! As David Roberts says, I want my kids to live in a country that does not pollute the atmosphere with [greenhouse gases]. You don't need to know any math to understand that. [Photo Credit - Step it UP!/John Quigley/Spectral Q] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Putting-Aside-Percentages---the-Right-Target-in-the-Fight-Against-Global-Warming-is-Carbon-Neutrality?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:29:42 -0400 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Energy policy global warming youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Warnings-from-a-Warming-World-Hurricane-Dean-Breaks-Records-Third-Most-Intense-Storm-at-Landfall?rsstype=group&gid=1 Hurricane Dean sets several records as many ponder the connection between Global Warming and stronger hurricanes Hurricane Dean made landfall early this morning as a fierce category five storm, slamming into the southern end of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula with 160+ mph winds and lashing rains. The major hurricane has set several records and, like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, caused many to take a closer look at the connection between global warming and more intense and devastating hurricanes. Here are the key records that Dean either broke or otherwise affects:1. With a minimum central pressure of 906 millibars, Dean was the ninth most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic basin (for comparison Hurricane Katrina's minimum pressure was 902 millibars). 2. That 906 millibar pressure reading was at landfall, making Dean the third most intense landfalling hurricane known in the Atlantic region and the first Category 5 storm at landfall since 1992's Hurricane Andrew. 3. When measured by minimum pressure, six of the ten most intense Atlantic hurricanes--Wilma, Rita, Katrina, Mitch, Dean, and Ivan--have occurred in the past ten years.As with any single weather event, it is impossible to blame Hurricane Dean or any other singular storm on global warming directly. However, if recent trends towards more intense storms are true - and they are at least consistent with scientific predictions based on basic thermodynamics - recent massive hurricanes could be a sign of things to come, as global warming continues to warm ocean temperatures, fueling stronger storms. Chris Mooney at Huffington Post and the Daily Green has published two excellent posts (one short, one longer) about what we can and can't say about global warming and Hurricane Dean: Now we see why the ancient Mayans built their cities inland from the coasts. Early this morning, Hurricane Dean slammed the Yucatan as a still-intensifying Category 5 storm with sustained winds upwards of 165 miles per hour. Dean required some troubling readjustments of our hurricane records, and as a result, we may hear some serious chatter today about the relationship between these intense storms and global warming. For that reason, the purpose of this post is to lay out what we can and can't reliably say about Hurricane Dean. The upshot is this: We have to be careful what we claim and how we claim it, but even so, Dean fits into a worrisome pattern. ... We can't blame any one hurricane event on global warming directly. Nevertheless, the information above is certainly consistent with the idea advanced by some scientists that global warming is causing an intensification of the average hurricane. We're apparently seeing the strongest hurricanes recur in the Atlantic with a higher frequency than before -- or at least, than we've ever been able to measure before. Measuring systems weren't as good in earlier eras, you see -- a fact that makes our records somewhat impeachable. A record is only what's recorded, after all. And so skeptics will inevitably quibble with our imperfect data and challenge it. There might well have been a storm much stronger than Dean 200 years ago -- we just don't know. Nevertheless, if you look at the data we have, Dean fits into a very troubling pattern and context. Moreover, the present data, with all their admitted imperfections, aren't all we have to go on. There's also the theoretical expectation that hurricanes ought to intensify, for basic thermodynamic reasons, as global warming adds more heat to the oceans. Add together this theoretical expectation with the new records today and, well, anyone would be justified in feeling pretty worried by Hurricane Dean. Dean was also the strongest hurricane anywhere in the world so far this year -- and by far the strongest at landfall. We can only hope that somehow, the damage is lighter than expected as the storm tears across the Yucatan today and then prepares to cross the Bay of Campeche and make a second expected landfall in mainland Mexico. For a further and more detailed discussion of Dean in its Atlantic and global context, see my Storm Pundit post at The Daily Green, available here. [An obvious hat tip to Chris Mooney. (Image source: Weather Underground)] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Warnings-from-a-Warming-World-Hurricane-Dean-Breaks-Records-Third-Most-Intense-Storm-at-Landfall?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:42:25 -0400 climate change global warming Warnings From a Warming World http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Before-We-Get-Drunk-on-Ethanol-Lets-Make-Sure-We-Get-It-Right?rsstype=group&gid=1 Not all biofuels are created equal: in fact, depending on how they are produced, biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel can be environmentally destructive, raise the price of food, and even hurt efforts to tackle global warming. Biofuels - ethanol and biodiesel - present a potentially important (partial) solution to concerns about global warming and our over-reliance on oil. However, to paraphrase a great LA Times op ed on the ethanol craze, alcohol is best enjoyed in moderation, and the same goes for these alcohol-based biofuels. So before we all get drunk on ethanol, we'd better take a close look at the benefits and potential drawbacks of biofuels and make sure we get it right. The Benefits - In Pursuit of Energy Independence and a Safe Climate Biofuels offer the potential to displace foreign oil and depleting fossil fuels with a more sustainable and domestic fuel while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Still, depending on how they are produced, ethanol and biodiesel require considerable fossil fuel inputs - diesel for tractors, natural gas for fertilizers, fuel to transport the feedstocks, and typically fossil fuels to produce the biofuels at a biorefinery. So while the biofuel itself may be made from renewable crops and contains only carbon that was absorbed from the atmosphere during the growth of the plants, the total net benefit of biofuels after taking into account inputs is far from carbon neutral nor fossil fuel free. Exactly how much net benefit there is to biofuels depends largely on the production methods and feedstocks and has been the subject of much debate. While some have repeatedly made the case that conventional biofuels - corn-based ethanol and soy or rapeseed-based biodiesel - take even more fossil fuels to produce than the offset, the consensus has been that conventional biofuels offer a moderate reduction in fossil energy use and greenhouse gas emissions - on the order of a 10-30% reduction when compared to conventional petroleum-based gasoline and diesel. Next-generation biofuels produced from cellulosic feedstocks - a fancy term for a wide variety of generally inedible plant matter including wood, straw, and grasses as well as agricultural wastes like corn stalks and rice hulls - are an exciting prospect and could maximize the potential for biofuels to offset oil and fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. Making ethanol or biodiesel from cellulosic feedstocks can be a much more energy efficient process than conventional corn or soy-based biofuels, can be made from inedible crops and even agriculture, forestry, or urban waste materials. However, next-generation, cellulosic biofuels are currently in the early stages of commercialization. The first pilot and commercial scale cellulosic biofuel refineries are under construction or on the drawing boards these days and how long it will take to fully scale up and commercialize the emerging biofuel technology remains to be seen. Up in Smoke - How Slash and Burn Agriculture Wipes Out the Climate Benefits of Biofuels Land use changes - most notably the loss of tropical forests - account for about 20 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions - roughly the same as both the total annual emissions from the United States or China. That's right: slash and burn agriculture can be just as large a threat to the climate as China's rampantly growing economy or the hundreds of millions of cars plying American highways! So if we're going to start replacing oil with biofuels, we'd better not be trading one problem - rampant oil consumption - for another equally devastating problem - accelerating the conversion of tropical rainforests into farm and grazing lands. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're beginning to see, with massive swaths of tropical forests, savannas and grasslands - all productive carbon 'sinks' - being slahed, burned and replaced by biofuels plantations. Massive expansions of palm oil plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia, soy and sugar plantations in Brazil, and jatropha plantations in China's forested Southeast have all been proposed to feed the growing global demand for biofuels. Slashing massive swaths of forests to clear the way for biofuel plantations clearly amounts to a devastating ecological loss. These tropical and semi-tropical forests are some of the most biologically-diverse habitats in the world and have already been devastated by traditional timber and agricultural demands. It's no wonder the Worldwatch Institute has called China's biofuels expansion an ecological disaster, and the same can be said for similar biofuel expansion plans across the world. But even beyond the massive loss of biodiversity and habitat when forests are converted to biofuel plantations, the destruction of these forestlands also wipes out any global warming benefits of biofuels. According to a new study published in Science last week ($ub req., see this New Scientist summary) the climate benefits of ethanol and biodiesel are completely wiped out by tropical deforestation. When you destroy forestlands, grasslands, savannas and other wilderness, much of the carbon stored in the ecosystem's living matter ends up in the atmosphere - burned, decomposed or otherwise oxidized. Additionally, forestlands represent an important carbon sink, 'breathing' carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and storing it as trees and other plants grow. The loss of these important natural carbon 'scrubbers' more than makes up for the moderate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from burning biofuels instead of gasoline or diesel: according to the study, it would take up to a century for the benefits of biofuels to recoup the initial loss of the tropical forestland and the emissions associated with slashing and burning the land to make way for biofuel plantations! We cannot afford that, in terms of climate change, says Renton Righelato, co-author of the new study. Furthermore, the study concludes that the climate benefits of biofuels are trumped by reforestation efforts, even in temperate climates. You get far more carbon sequestered by planting forests than you avoid emissions by producing biofuels on the same land, says Righelato. The study's authors found that reforestation would store and sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels produced on the same amount of land instead of gasoline (see bar chart below). [Graphic: the carbon savings from burning biofuels instead of gasoline (top six bars) compared to the carbon emissions resulting from clearing tropical forestland for biofuel plantations (red bar) and the carbon savings from reforestation efforts (bottom three bars). Figures are expressed as metric tons of carbon equivalent saved or emitted per acre devoted to biofuel production or reforestation. (Source: New Scientist)] No Free Lunch When Fuel Competes with Food We all know the old adage: there's no such thing as a free lunch. Well, when fuel competes with food, everyone's lunch gets more expensive (as the LA Times accurately observes). The vast bulk of global biofuels production utilizes edible feedstocks like corn and soy. As demand for corn to make ethanol has soared, corn prices have shot up, nearly doubling in the past year. Record high prices are encouraging a record acreage of corn planted in the United States - the highest in 63 years - and prices for other foods are on the rise as farmers plant corn in acreage they have otherwise planted wheat or soy. Prices for all kinds of food have soared in the first half of 2007 (see chart below) and the LA Times op ed reports that grocery-store food prices rose 8%. It's unknown how much of that hike is attributable to corn, and rising fuel and fertilizer costs are certainly a major factor in rising food prices, but soaring demand for corn for ethanol production is certainly playing a significant role as well. [Graphic: Food prices on the rise in 2007. (Source: McClatchy Newspapers)] Middle class Americans may be able to shrug off higher prices at the grocery store, but increasing food costs hit lower income folks harder. And if low-income Americans are feeling the crunch, things are even harder in the developing world. When you get buy on just a few dollars a day, doubling corn prices are no small matter. Rising corn prices have already launched public outcry and even riots in Mexico, which depends on imported American corn for tortillas and other affordable, nutritious stables. Producing biofuels from inedible cellulosic feedstocks could provide a solution to this fuel-or-food dilemma, although producing energy crops like switchgrass - an excellent biofuel feedstock and native North American grass that once dominated much of the Great Plains - on limited agricultural land could continue the competition between biofuels and foodstuffs. Clean Green Fuels? - Other Environmental Effects Industrial farming to produce biofuel feedstocks, particularly corn, consumes large amounts of water and chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Many of these chemicals seep into waterways, polluting the water and providing nutrients for algae blooms that suck up all the oxygen and kill everything else. A 'dead zone' the size of Connecticut and Delaware put together has repeatedly formed in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by algae gorging on chemical fertilizers carried into the Gulf by the Mississippi river. Additionally, farmers ordinarily rotate crops annually to avoid soil exhaustion, but high corn prices encourage them to plant corn in the same fields year after year. This high-intensity farming accelerates the loss of topsoil and depletes soil nutrients and the only way to make this work is to pour on more fertilizers, further exacerbating problems. Finally, while ethanol may be cleaner burning when it comes to many pollutants and is a better fuel additive or oxygenate than toxic MTBE, burning ethanol in high concentrations could increase certain air pollutants. A recent Stanford University study argued that E85 - a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline - produces so much ozone, a key ingredient in smog, that if it were used in Los Angeles instead of gasoline, it would raise ozone-related deaths 9%. Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater - If We're Smart, Biofuels Still Have a Role to Play Given all of these concerns about increased use of ethanol and biodiesel, should we just bag the whole idea and move on to something else? No, I would argue. When it comes to confronting the climate crisis and ending our oil addiction - two massive problems - we're going to need all the tools we can get. Biofuels, if done right, still have an important role to play in reducing our reliance on oil and our contribution to global climate change. I present the above concerns about biofuels because understanding the potential pitfalls, problems and limitations of biofuels - both conventional and next-generation - will be crucial to developing the standards that are necessary to ensure that biofuels can help make a dent in our oil addiction and help solve the climate crisis without exacerbating other environmental problems. We should focus on developing cellulosic biofuels that rely on readily available cellulosic biomass in existing waste streams - timber slash and mill residues, urban wood wastes, agricultural residues, etc. These feedstocks offer the least environmental impacts, do not compete with food crops, and according to this study (pdf) are available in large enough quantities to be worth pursuing - roughly 3/4 of a billion dry tons each year, or enough to produce around 75 billion gallons of ethanol or biodiesel if estimated yields from next-generation biorefineries prove correct. That is enough biofuel to provide about 1/3rd of all the energy consumed by cars and light trucks in the United States. Additionally, unlike producing ethanol from corn, which typically requires large amounts of coal or natural gas, converting cellulosic biomass to biofuels requires little or no fossil fuel inputs. In fact, cellulosic biorefineries should be able to utilize the lignin portion of the biomass left over after the cellulose is removed to produce all of the energy inputs for the refinery process and even produce electricity for export (potentially offsetting electricity from coal or natural gas). Getting on the Right Path - Time for a New U.S. Biofuels Strategy To be done right: Biofuels should not come from edible feedstocks, including corn, soy or wheat. Biofuels should preferably be produced from readily-available, existing waste streams of cellulosic biomass. If produced from an energy crop, sustainable harvesting practices should be employed, the crops should be grown on existing farmland and should be planted as part of a regular, sustainable crop rotation so as to not compete with foodstuffs. The full, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of all biofuels should be considered, including (and especially) emissions from land use changes. Under no circumstances should a biofuel feedstock be utilized that results in the clearing of rainforest or other wilderness areas or results in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Employing these kinds of standards in our public policy would necessitate a dramatic shift away from heavily supporting corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel. It would necessitate the creation of environmental sustainability standards for the U.S. biofuels industry and would imply a ban on imported biofuels from countries that do not adopt satisfactory sustainability standards on their own domestic biofuels industries. It would require a focus on commercializing next-generation cellulosic biofuel technologies and exploring the most sustainable feedstock sources and harvesting/collection methods. So, given all of the concerns about biofuels, why aren't any of our elected officials calling for a change in direction for the U.S. biofuels industry? Why do we continue to subsidize the corn ethanol industry to the tune of several billion dollars a year? Why do all of the presidential candidates pay at least lip service to corn ethanol, even those like Hillary Clinton and John McCain that have been openly critical of corn ethanol in the past? Well, the political power of agri-giants like ADM and Cargill and the importance of corn-growing Iowa in presidential elections are certainly standing in the way of a sensible biofuels policy. It's hard to find another explanation for an energy policy that is so clearly designed to do little to actually solve any of the problems it's supposed to solve while so clearly benefiting narrow but politically powerful special interests. The latest Senate energy bill continues this trend with a massive 36 billion gallon/year by 2022 biofuels requirement, 40% of which will likely come from good old corn-based ethanol, necessitating a quadrupling in the U.S. corn ethanol industry! (To be fair, the bill does require that 60% of the standard is met with next generation biofuels...) It's time for a change in American energy policy when it comes to biofuels. It's time to actually have an energy policy when it comes to biofuels, and not a massive agricultural subsidy program disguised as an energy policy. Let's heed the warnings of climate scientists, ecologists and rioting Mexican peasants: the path we're on right now means biofuels exacerbate the climate crisis, amount to an environmental disaster, and drive up prices for food around the world. But there's another path, a path where sustainably-harvested, next-generation biofuels coupled with a dramatic increase in fuel efficiency and the adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles makes gasoline a thing of the past. It's time to get ourselves on the right path. [A hat tip to Glenn Hurowitz at Gristmill] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Before-We-Get-Drunk-on-Ethanol-Lets-Make-Sure-We-Get-It-Right?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:10:20 -0400 alternative fuels alternative transportation biodiesel biofuels biomass cellulosic ethanol climate change climate change policy Energy policy ethanol federal policy global warming http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Greening-the-Army?rsstype=group&gid=1 For a while now, I've been a proponent of the public sector--that is, government on every level--being a customer of cleantech, not only for the purposes of spurring innovation and monetizing potential markets, but also on the principals that it is our government and they should be as green and clean as we expect ourselves to be. Plus, we're talking a ton of buildings, employees, and vehicles that may well be consuming far more energy than they need to. So, it seems the Army is getting into the act with its next generation of ground vehicles (the MGV program), making the whole line hybrid electric. Now, part of this move is tactical. As forces are discovering in Iraq, going with quieter vehicles tends to make it easier to sneak into position when conducting an offensive. And the electric vehicles would be quieter, potentially much quieter. In the article, the Army's project manager for the MGV line is quoted as saying that the engine will be entirely decoupled from the drivetrain. What's that mean? Well, it means that the engine will only be run to recharge the batteries, not actually drive the vehicle. This means that the drivetrain itself can be designed with optimization for electric propulsion, rather than engine propulsion. Engine propulsion, especially for heavy armored vehicles, requires heavy transmission assemblies and specific gearing, as noted in the Slashdot thread for this article. All-electric propulsion doesnt' have to deal with that, saving weight and energy in the bargain. The funny thing about this is, the military has been using hybrid vehicles forever. Well, at least since the days of diesel submarines. Those subs were actually diesel-electric, with their big diesel engines being used to charge huge banks of batteries for silent running. They've gone out of style in the US military, at least, since the first nuclear-powered subs were launched, but there's still quite a bit of institutional expertise in the area, especially in dealing with non-US navies, which still make extensive use of these hybrid subs. What's perhaps the most important, of course, is that as battery storage technology improves, these MGVs could easily be retrofitted with new batteries, extending their range and reducing emissions, without the capital investment of building all new vehicles. Such is not the case today with the Army's fleet of diesel-only vehicles. But once they do make the switch to hybrids, the Army will be able to better keep up with changing technology, saving money, and saving on emissions. And as with most military technology, the trickle-down impact could be significant in the hybrid and electric markets. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Greening-the-Army?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:26:12 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/What-to-Do-About-Global-Warming-A-Basic-Framework-for-a-Good-Cap-and-Trade-Proposal3727?rsstype=group&gid=1 David Roberts at GristMill has been writing a series of thoughtful posts on the potential actions the 110th Congress may take to address climate change. As he recognizes in this post, we're now moving beyond simply demanding that Congress do something about global warming and have start thinking about what we want that something to look like. If we can't articulate some simple principles, we risk having growing momentum and calls for action co-opted to pass a weak, ineffective climate bill that fails to get the job done at the same time that Congress declares victory and tells us to pack up and go home. As David writes, We need the grassroots to be engaged, pushing back against the many half-ass measures on offer, lobbying on behalf of good measures. And to do that, to engage with the incredibly 'wonky' and complex yet enormously relevant topic of cap-and-trade proposals, people need some simple guidelines to help them see if a climate proposal is a good one or not. We need a few simple points we can latch on to, encourage our legislators to keep in mind and build pressure behind. To that end, David recently outlined the general elements of what makes a good cap and trade system. Obviously there could be different priorities - Step it UP! 2 has a different, broader-focused list - but these are what both David and I agree are the key elements to a strong cap-and-trade proposal worth supporting: 1) Auction rather than give away emissions permits for free. Free allowances are a windfall for polluters, forgo an excellent revenue source (that can help offset the costs to low-income energy users and spur clean energy investment ... see point 2 below) and undermine the price signal for polluters that's the whole point of putting a price on carbon. 2) Spend revenue wisely to spur development and deployment of clean energy and reduce impacts on low-income and vulnerable citizens. Putting a price on carbon will raise energy prices and will do so in a regressive manner: those with lower incomes pay a much more substantial portion of their income to energy costs and will be hit hardest by higher energy bills. The regressive nature of a cap and auction policy can be remedied by pumping auction revenues back into reducing payroll or income taxes for low-income citizens - I would suggest an expansion of the earned income tax credit, for example. The remaining revenue should either be used to fund incentives and R&D in clean energy technologies, or to fund a flat, per-capita tax rebate/reduction for everyone. The former will help further reduce energy bills by decreasing the costs of the clean technologies that will help transition to a low-carbon energy future and the latter will be a politically popular way to help sell the whole concept, building support by producing tangible benefits to voters. Both also help further offset the regressive nature of a carbon price. 3) No 'safety valves' that undermine the integrity of the cap. A 'safety valve' or cap on emissions allowance prices undermines the integrity of the cap and destroys the price signals necessary to incent investment in low-carbon technologies, sacrificing the goals of the legislation to protect polluters. These are simple guidelines and principles for what an effective cap and trade program would look like. To David's list, I'll add one more crucial point: 4) Targets that get the job done. This probably means a target of 10-20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. We've got to cut emissions hard and fast in the United States to a) do our fair share to curb rising global emissions and b) gain credibility with the rest of the world, particularly China and India, as we try to lead an international effort to cut global emissions at least in half by mid-century. That will mean getting developing nations to agree to develop in a less carbon-intensive way and to adopt mandatory caps on their emissions, a tough sell unless we're leading the way with credible, strong actions at home. To summarize, as David does, auction permits, spend the resulting revenue wisely, and don't short-circuit the system with safety valves. We can all remember that, right? Oh, and don't forget (as David unfortunately does) that we need targets that will actually get the job done - 80% by 2050 - or the whole thing's pointless anyway. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/What-to-Do-About-Global-Warming-A-Basic-Framework-for-a-Good-Cap-and-Trade-Proposal3727?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:06:17 -0400 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Election 2008 Energy policy federal policy global warming youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/An-Interview-with-Docter-James-Hansen?rsstype=group&gid=1 [It's Getting Hot In Here has a great interview with Dr. James Hansen, widely regarded as America's top climate scientist. Dr. Hansen discusses a moratorium on coal-fired power plants, the role of 'clean coal' technology, and youth participation in the climate solutions movement. Special thanks to Whit Jones and the It's Getting Hot In Here community for putting together this interview...] Last weekend Iowa native Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute made a homecoming trip to the Hawkeye state to join the March to ReEnergize Iowa and deliver the keynote address at the final rally. See the complete transcript of his speech here and read about the rally in the Des Moines Register. Dr. Hansen echoed his call for a moratorium on coal and increased youth participation in the preservation of our future. The It's Getting Hot In Here community generated a list of questions that were delivered to Dr. Hansen and his responses are included below. Please be sure to leave your thoughts and responses in the comments section. 1) In the span of your career, public opinion on global warming has shifted dramatically, have we reached the tipping point necessary to effectively combat it? That is unclear. Although there has been a recent widespread increase in awareness, it comes at just the same time as an energy crunch due to a booming global economy (especially emergence of China) that is causing a sudden surge of increased coal use. If this is not nipped in the bud, we could lose the ball game. 2) In one of your recent email dispatches (pdf), you made a bold statement by calling for a moratorium on coal without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. Does the attention and recognition paid to CCS technology divert money and energy from clean energy and efficiency technologies? It certainly should not. CCS technology is still somewhat of a mirage. As of yet there is no clean coal in reality, and commercial availability is probably at least 10 years away with current efforts. If a requirement is placed that coal can only be used if it is truly clean, that will cause a sudden stop in any increased use of coal. Efficiency and renewable energies are likely to be the big winners from such a constraint, at least for a decade and perhaps forever. CCS may be so expensive that it will cause a big change in the attractiveness of coal. Coal is presently very cheap, partly because it is often subsidized and because it almost never has to pay for the environmental damage it does, including mercury pollution of lakes and oceans. 3) What role do you see for youth in bringing forth a moratorium on coal? The damages of dirty coal will be visited mainly on the youth of today and on the unborn. This is true especially for the climate changes that will be put into the pipeline to appear in future decades, but also for effects of water pollution such as brain damage due to mercury in fish, and the mess that is left behind on bull-dozed mountains. 4) What was the major issue on campuses when you were a student? Were you involved? The Vietnam war. I was a post-doc by the time students really got heated up. They took over buildings on the Columbia University campus. No, I was not involved. It doesn't fit my personality, I prefer working on science problems. I have had to force myself to get involved in the present case. It seems to me that the most useful thing that I can do is try to contribute to the court cases against inefficient vehicles and coal-fired power plants. 5) If we remove subsidies from carbon-intensive energy sources and manage to put a price on carbon, won't CCS coal be priced out of the market? Perhaps, but only if there are alternatives, much of which would probably be energy efficiency. Much more than half of the energy that we use is wasted. So if coal is priced out, that would be great. Imagine the cleaner atmosphere and ocean, and all the good high tech jobs that would be needed to replace that energy source. There are a lot of jobs associated with energy efficiency, as well as renewable energies. 6) Do you think CCS Coal technology will be essential for a low-carbon future for countries like China? Is it problematic, practically, ethically and scientifically, to transfer this technology to China when it is basically untested here? It will surely be tested here and elsewhere. It can be tested there, as well as here. It is not like this is a dangerous technology that is going to explode and kill people. 7) In light of the fact that the impacts of fossil fuel use extend beyond the greenhouse effect, to what extent should we address the life cycle costs, such as mountain top removal mining and exploitation of impacted communities when confronting global warming? Absolutely, it is very important to look at the life cycle costs, especially for things such as ethanol. Germany is finding that the huge subsidies they gave coal are now coming back to haunt them. Some villages are sinking a few feet there are tens of billions of dollars of future costs due to land subsidence. These costs will be born by today's youth, and the unborn. 8) Traditional media has failed to reach youth with the message that fighting coal is necessary to preserve our future, what do you think is the role for new media. Well, one problem is that the media always focuses on today. It shortchanges the young and future generations. I don't know how to fix that. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/An-Interview-with-Docter-James-Hansen?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:26:46 -0400 alternative energy China India climate change climate change activism climate change policy coal energy efficiency Energy policy ethanol global warming renewable energy youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Step-it-UP-2-Bigger-Badder-and-In-Search-of-a-Leader?rsstype=group&gid=1 Announcing Step it UP! 2, November 3rd, 2007. The sequel will be even bigger and badder than the original - but only with your help! On April 14th, 2007, hundreds of thousands of citizens joined forces to send a loud and clear message to Congress: Step it UP, Congress: Cut Carbon 80% by 2050. Students joined seasoned activists alongside everyone from soccer moms to hippies at over 1,400 different rallies and events held across the United States as part of the national Step it UP! 2007 day of action. At city squares and village greens, on the tops of mountains and along threatened coastlines - there were even events underwater (check out this slideshow) - concerned citizens all across the country came together in what became the largest day of environmental protest since Earth Day 1970. We came together to draw a line in the sand and demand action to address the climate crisis. Step it UP! 2007 gathered national and local media attention. We engaged our elected officials - many of whom made the Step it UP pledge alongside us - and we got a response: all of the 2008 Democratic candidates for president have now adopted the Step it UP! platform of an 80% cut in global warming pollution by 2050. Bills in both the Senate and House would make that call for action a reality and are gathering support and sponsorship. Most of all, Step it UP! helped build a citizen movement for global warming solutions. And as Bill McKibben, founder of Step it UP! points out, A movement needs to keep moving, and calling for real leadership is the next logical step. That's why Bill and the Middlebury College students who successfully organized and kicked off Step it UP! in April are at it again: last week, they announced Step it UP! 2: Who's a Leader', a second round of nationwide protests, rallies and actions scheduled for November 3rd, 2007. November 3rd is just about one year before the pivotal 2008 elections - an election that will make our break our efforts to tackle the climate crisis and build a sustainable energy future - and the goal of Step it UP! 2, as McKibben summarizes, is to find out who is simply a politician, and who's ready to be a leader. Here's Bill McKibben's invitation to all of us take one Saturday this fall to join with our fellow citizens to make Step it UP! 2 even bigger and badder than the first version! This is a citizen movement, built from the ground up by you and me, and it's up to us to make Step it UP! 2 a success in each of our communities. Let's keep on movin' on: Dear Friend, There are occasional moments in history when we desperately need leadership, and this is one of them. If we're going to deal with global warming, then we need to go beyond politicians who say the right words and find champions who will actually do the tough work to transform our energy economy. And you could play a key role in bringing those leaders to the fore. This is an invitation to take one Saturday this fall and use it to build a movement, a movement strong enough to finally put this issue on the table where it can no longer be ignored. Here's the idea. On November 3, a year before the next election, we're asking people to organize rallies large and small in their communities. Each one should take place in some spot that commemorates great leaders of the past. People have already committed to climbing New Hampshire's Mt. Washington and gathering in Chicago's Lincoln Park. Others will gather at the Rhode Island church where John F. Kennedy was married, or in front of a site honoring Navajo elder and activist Roberta Blackgoat. But we need hundreds more, gatherings in places that bear the names of national leaders or of locally celebrated men and women who did the right thing in a moment of great need. You'll know the person that makes sense in your city or town they don't need to be saints, just true leaders, the kind who, faced with the great issues of their day, didn't punt or compromise. Once you've got your rally registered on our website, we'll help you gather a crowd, and invite the politicians from your neck of the woods. We want to ask every Senator and Representative, and every candidate for those offices, to come to these rallies, along with state and local officials. Once they're there, we'll present politicians with the four 1 Sky priorities prepared in the last few months by climate campaigners across the country. They are: an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, 10% in three years (hit the ground running), a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, and a Green Jobs Corps to help fix homes and businesses so those targets can be met. Basically, we want to find out who is simply a politician, and who's ready to be a leader. We know these gatherings will be effective. In April, with the help ofthousands of people (most of them brand new to organizing) from across the country, we organized 1,400 rallies in places that showed how climate change would affect our lives. Those events were key in putting the demand for real action--80% cuts in carbon emissions by 2050--square in the middle of the Washington debate. But a movement needs to keep moving, and calling for real leadership is the next step. Don't worry if you've never organized anything before--you're not putting together a March on Washington, just a gathering of scores or hundreds in your town or neighborhood. It needn't be slick; homemade is just fine. Put your imagination to work: what would Lincoln do? How would Dr. King take on this challenge? This is a celebration of leadership, and a celebration should be joyful as focused on the new economies and communities we can create as on the threats we must avoid. These rallies will be local, but they'll also have national impact. The website will help draw people to your action, and then on Nov. 3, we'll be gathering pictures and video from around the country so that by nightfall we'll have a good online slideshow of how America feels. We'll do our best to make sure that every candidate is firmly on the record about their plans. By the time the day is done, you'll have helped change the political landscape. The best science tells us we have barely a decade to start the fundamental transformation of our economy and to lead the world in the same direction or else, in the words of NASA's Jim Hansen, we will face a totally different planet. (He went on to say that the 1 Sky priorities describe just the kind of trajectory we need to start solving the problem). A decade's not very long we've got to get going. I know you've already done the obvious things, like changing some of the lightbulbs in your house. Screwing in a lightbulb is important; screwing in a new federal policy to deal with climate change is crucial, especially if we're ever going to regain enough credibility to help lead the world toward a stable climate. November 3 will be a powerful day, and you can play a vital role. Please sign up on the website to start or join an action and thank you so much for caring enough to be a leader yourself. Bill McKibben and the StepItUp2007.org team P.S.One more thing. Please forward this invitation as far and wide as possible, to anyone you know who might possibly be interested. We're not really an organization, and we don't have lists of names we depend on people like you to take the initiative. So what are you going to do in your community? Let's Step it UP one more time, keep gathering momentum, carry it through Focus the Nation in January 2008, the primary elections in the spring and on through next summer and the 2008 elections. Nothing less than the future of the world as we know it hangs in the balance! http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Step-it-UP-2-Bigger-Badder-and-In-Search-of-a-Leader?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:55:27 -0400 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Election 2008 federal policy global warming youth activism http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/House-Passes-Clean-Energy-Bills-Including-National-Renewable-Energy-Standard?rsstype=group&gid=1 The House passes crucical clean energy legislation, but challenges still await in the form of a contentious conference committee and a possible presidential veto. This past Saturday, the House of Representatives took a crucial step towards creating the sustainable energy future we've been calling for with the passage of two important clean energy bills. The first, H.R.3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act is a package of energy efficiency provisions, clean energy R&D spending and other energy policies. Weighing in at almost 800 pages long, H.R.3221 has been a project of more than a half-dozen committees for the past few months. It finally made it to the House floor Saturday and passed with a vote of 241-172. The second bill, H.R.2776 is a package of tax incentives, loan guarantees and other financial incentives for clean energy, and is known as the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007. The bill includes expansions of several popular and effective incentives, including the federal production tax credit, the solar investment tax credit and community renewable energy bonds. H.R.2771 passed 221-189. The nearly $16 billion in clean energy appropriations in the two bills are funded by eliminating oil and gas company tax breaks and closing loopholes and correcting mistakes in current tax and royalty laws. A summary of both clean energy bills can be found at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website. Perhaps the biggest, and most surprising, victory of the day was the passage of an amendment (pdf) sponsored by Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) that establishes a national renewable energy standard (RES) requiring utilities across the country - other than public utilties and electric cooperatives - to get at least 15% of their electricity from clean, homegrown renewable energy sources by 2020. In a compromise that helped secure the RES amendment's passage with a 220-190 vote, up to 4 percentage points of the 15% standard may be met by energy efficiency investments. It should be noted that states will retain the authority to implement higher standards and that those already in place will be protected. While the passage of the RES amendment and the two clean energy bills is a major clean energy victory, this was only the first of three battles bills must face before being implemented. The Senate, unable to get the necessary support to overcome a filibuster, did not include a renewable energy standard in its energy package this past June, nor was it able to pass a tax package proposal similar to H.R.2771. Additionally, the House failed to muster support for an increase in CAF standards - an increase in fuel efficiency requirement to 35 mpg by 2020 for cars, SUV's, and light trucks - that was included in the Senate energy package. The differences in the two packages will need to be debated in conference committee, when the House and Senate energy packages are merged. When the package goes to conference, CAF and RES are going to be important talking points. Democratic leaders will try to include both provisions and protect the tax package while Senate Republicans have called the RES a deal-breaker and even some House Democrats have opposed increased CAF standards, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell, who has jurisdiction over the issue. An opinion piece in the LA Times explains the situation perfectly: In june, the senate passed an energy bill loaded with creamy peanut butter. On Saturday the House approved an energy package that's pure chocolate.Cookies If we could get these two together without removing their tastiest ingredients, the nation would be in for a history-making treat. Like the Energizer Bunny, it seems the energy debates will keep going and going and going through the fall, and the fate of these provisions now lies in the hands of House and Senate leaders who will participate in the conference committee.As if surviving conference not a big enough challenge, the final battle for crucial clean energy legislation will be against our President, George W. Bush, who has threatened to veto the energy package when it comes to his desk. The President is opposed to the provisions in two House energy bills that would end tax breaks for the oil and gas industry to pay for clean energy investments. We need rid America of our reliance on fossil fuels and build a new, sustainable energy future. If the best elements of both the House and Senate energy packages can survive conference and veto, this will be a historic first step towards that future. Though the RES amendment had to be weakened to ensure necessary support - the targets were first dropped from 20% to 15% and then up to 4% of that was allowed to come from energy efficiency before supporters could secure the necessary votes - the completed energy package is a promising step forward, and certainly worth celebrating. The tides are beginning to change. The tenacity with which activists have attacked climate change is beginning to show serious results. Let your Representatives and Senators know you support a strong energy package, one which includes both an RES and increased CAFE standards. We have the opportunity to truly shift the direction our country is headed in. The energy bills passed by the House and Senate won't be the end of the story, but they are a crucial step forward. Congress wont be back in session until September 4th, so take this time to make your position known. [A hat tip to Mattew Maiorana] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/House-Passes-Clean-Energy-Bills-Including-National-Renewable-Energy-Standard?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:51:59 -0400 alternative energy climate change climate change policy energy conservation energy efficiency Energy policy federal policy global warming renewable energy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Warnings-from-a-Warming-World-World-Meteorological-Organization-Reports-on-Extreme-Weather-Events6754?rsstype=group&gid=1 The first half of 2007 was full of extreme weather events of the kind climate scientists predict will be more frequent as global warming progresses. Weather and climate are marked by record extremes in many regions across the world since January 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported today. Today's press release describes a catalog of extreme weather and climate events experienced across the world in the first half of 2007, from hurricanes and cycles to torrential floods. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report noted an increasing trend in these kind of extreme weather events during the last 50 years, and the IPCC report predicts that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent as global warming progresses. According to the WMO, January and April 2007 recorded what was likely the highest land surface temperatures those months have ever seen since record began in 1880. January was a full 1.89 C (3.4 F) warmer than average and April 1.37 C (2.47 F) warmer than average, according to the WMO. Several regions also experienced prolonged heat waves and torrential rains leading to flooding, while devastating cyclones and hurricanes made landfall in several regions, including the first ever recorded cyclone in the Arabian Sea (Cyclone Gonu, pictured making landfall above right). The WMO report below catalogs extreme weather events recorded across the world during the first half of 2007: Heavy rainfall, cyclones, hurricanes and wind storms During the first half (June-July) of the Indian summer monsoon season, four monsoon depressions (double the normal frequency) caused heavy rainfall and floods in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Many stations reported 24-hr rainfall exceeding 350 mm (13.8 in). These monsoon extremes and incessant rains caused large-scale flooding all over South Asia, a situation that continues even now, resulting in more than 500 deaths, displacement of more than 10 million people and destruction of vast areas of croplands, livestock and property. Cyclone Gonu, the first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea, made landfall in Oman on 6 June with maximum sustained winds near 148 km/h (92 mi/h). Gonu moved through the Persian Gulf making a second landfall in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In Oman, the cyclone affected more than 20,000 people and was responsible for more than 50 fatalities. Heavy rains during 6-10 June ravaged areas across southern China. Flooding affected over 13.5 million people with more than 120 fatalities due to floods and landslides. In England and Wales the period May to July in 2007 was the wettest (406 mm/16 in) since records began in 1766, breaking the previous record of 349 mm (13.7 in) in 1789. The extreme rainfall in June, with 103.1 mm (4 in) of rain recorded in 24 hours during 24-25 June in northeast England, was followed by a similar event with 120.8 mm (4.8 in) of rain on 20 July in central England. Both events resulted in extensive flooding across parts of England and Wales. At least nine people have died and damage is estimated at more than US$6.00 billion. With 126 mm (5 in) (normal for 1961-1990: 71 mm [2.8 in]), Germany experienced its wettest May since country-wide observations started in 1901. In sharp contrast, the previous month was the driest April since 1901 with an average of 4 mm (0.16 in) (7% of the 1961-1990 normal). A powerful storm system affected much of northern Europe during 17-18 January 2007 with torrential rains and winds gusting up to 170 km/h (105 mi/h). There were at least 47 deaths across the region, with disruptions in electric supply affecting tens of thousands during the storm. Initial estimates of losses were reported as 3-5 billion Euros. The worst flooding event in 6 years hit Mozambique in February. An estimated 30 people were killed and 120,000 evacuated from the central Zambezi basin. Additional flooding and loss of life was attributed to the landfall of tropical cyclone Favio on 22nd February. Abnormally heavy and early rainfall in Sudan since the end of June has caused the Nile River and other seasonal rivers to overflow, resulting in extensive flooding and damaging more than 16,000 houses. In May a series of large swell waves (estimated at 3-4.5 meters/10-15 feet) swamped some 68 islands in 16 atolls in the Maldives causing serious flooding and extensive damages. In early May, Uruguay was hit by the worst flooding since 1959. Heavy rainfall in portions of Uruguay produced floods that affected more than 110,000 people and severely damaged crops and buildings. An increase in intense tropical cyclone activities in the North Atlantic since about 1970 has also been observed. Heat Waves Many European countries had their warmest January on record. January temperatures in The Netherlands were the highest since measurements were first taken in 1706, averaging about 7.1 C (44.8 F) (2.8 C/5 F above 1961-1990 average) while in Germany the temperatures were 4.6 C (8.3 F) above the 1961-1990 average. In many European countries, April was the warmest ever recorded with the temperatures reaching more than 4 C (7.2 F) over and above the long-term mean in some areas. In May a heat wave affected areas across western and central Russia breaking several temperature records. In Moscow, temperatures on 28 May reached 32.9 C (91.2 F), the highest temperature recorded in May since 1891. In India, a heat wave during mid-May produced temperatures as high as 45-50 C (113-122 F). Two extreme heat waves affected south-eastern Europe in June and July, breaking the previous records with temperatures exceeding 40 C (104 F). Dozens of people died and fire-fighters worked around the clock fighting blazes devastating thousands of hectares of land. On 23 July, temperatures hit 45 C (113 F) in Bulgaria, setting a new record. Recognizing the severe health impacts of heat waves, the WMO and the World Health Organization (WHO), are at an advanced stage of preparing Guidance on the implementation of Heat Health early Warning Systems (HHWS). Extreme Winter Weather An unusual cold winter season brought winds, blizzards and rare snowfall to various provinces in South America with temperatures reaching as low as -22 C (-7.6 F) in Argentina and -18 C (-0.4 F) in Chile in the beginning of July. On 27 June a winter weather front moved across South Africa bringing the country's first significant snowfall since 1981 (25 cm/9.8 in of snow in parts of the country). Climate Change and Extremes According to the most recent climate change scientific assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 C/0.23 F per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Paleoclimatic studies suggest that the average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in the past 1,300 years. The IPCC further notes that there has been an increasing trend in the extreme events observed during the last 50 years, particularly heavy precipitation events, hot days, hot nights and heat waves. Climate change projections indicate it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. Data This information is based on inputs received from several WMO Members and with the collaboration of the NOAA National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC), USA, Germany's National Meteorological Service, the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) and the Met Office, UK. It includes an indicative but not exhaustive coverage of the observed weather and climate extremes. More comprehensive information on weather and climate anomalies observed in 2007 will be provided towards the end of the year. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Warnings-from-a-Warming-World-World-Meteorological-Organization-Reports-on-Extreme-Weather-Events6754?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:06:18 -0400 climate change global warming Warnings From a Warming World http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Bush-Administration-Threatens-Veto-of-House-Clean-Energy-Bills?rsstype=group&gid=1 Two House bills, if passed, would redirect subsidies and close royalty loopholes for oil and gas industries to provide tax incentives, bonds and R&D investments for clean energy technologies, increase energy efficiency standards, create green jobs and direct the federal government to be a leader in reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Two important clean energy packages scheduled to head to the House floor tomorrow have been threatened with presidential veto, according to a Bush Administration Statement of Administration Policy released today (pdf). The Bush Administration describes the two clean energy bills as implementing unnecessary and duplicative new Federal energy efficiency and R&D bureaucracy and global climate and worker training programs and strongly opposes provisions in the bill that would redirect subsidies and close loopholes currently enjoyed by the oil and gas industries. H.R.3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act contains a package of clean energy legislation that would increase R&D investments in clean energy technologies, raise efficiency standards for appliances and lighting, and direct the federal government to become a leader in reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, among other provisions. H.R.2771, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, is a companion tax package that would expand tax incentives and bonds for renewable energy, energy efficiency and renewable fuels as well as incentives for consumers to purchase plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and energy efficient appliances. To pay for the package of clean energy incentives, the two bills would repeal approximately $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies and close a tax loophole that, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, allows big oil and gas companies to game the system by understating their foreign oil and gas extraction income. H.R.2771 also closes the so-called Hummer Tax Loophole that provides an extra tax incentive for businesses buying luxury SUVs, while exempting vehicles that are used for legitimate business purposes. The two bills are very similar to H.R. 6 passed by the House during the First 100 Days push. H.R. 6 went on to the Senate where the version passed out of the Senate in June failed to include the tax provisions (see previous post). The two new bills are the House leadership's second attempt to get a strong package of clean energy incentives into Conference Committee with the Senate and eventually onto President Bush's desk, forcing him to sign the legislation or make good on veto threats. A summary of both clean energy bills can be found at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website. According to Speaker Pelosi: This legislation [H.R. 3221 and H.R. 2771] puts us on a path toward energy independence, strengthens national security, grows our economy and creates new jobs, lowers energy prices, and begins to address global warming. It does so by investing in the future. Specifically, we will invest in new energy technologies and innovation to create new jobs; improve energy efficiency for a wide range of products, lighting and buildings; make the federal government a leader in reducing energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions; and strengthen research and diplomatic efforts on climate change to protect our planet. Not so, according to President Bush, who's Statement of Administration Policy says: The stated goal of energy reform by the new majority in the House of Representatives was to achieve energy independence, strengthen national security, grow our economy and create jobs, lower energy prices, and begin to address global warming. The Administration is disappointed that the House has produced no such legislation, and instead is planning to consider H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221, two bills that are not serious attempts to increase our energy security or address high energy costs. In fact, the combination of these two bills will result in less domestic oil and gas production, higher taxes to disadvantage a single targeted industry, and duplicative energy efficiency and R&D efforts that are largely underway already. According to the statement, Because H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221 fail to deliver American consumers or businesses more energy security, but rather would lead to less domestic oil and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher taxes, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto these bills. Although the President's statement plays lip service to renewable energy and conservation and touts the $12 billion of investment in clean, safe advanced energy resources made under the Administration's watch - mostly to 'clean coal,' hydrogen and advanced nuclear energy technologies it should be noted - the specific complaints with the two House clean energy bills outlined in the administration statement center around the bill's impacts on the oil and gas industries. The administration complains that repealing tax incentives and subsidies for oil and gas industries - or raising taxes as the administration describes it - would lead to higher energy costs to U.S. consumers and businesses and puts U.S. industries at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors. The administration also strongly opposes language that would force holders of certain deepwater oil and gas leases issued in 1998 and 1999 ... to either renegotiate the terms of the leases, pay an excessive fee, or face being barred from future oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. In a simple drafting mistake that has cost the U.S. government billions of dollars, more than 1,000 Clinton-era leases for deep water oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico failed to include provisions that require companies to share a portion of the revenue they receive from the sale of oil and gas produced on federal lands when prices reach a certain level. These royalty payments are standard in most federal leases and ensure the government a cut of the profit when oil prices soar as they have in recent years. The fix proposed by H.R. 3221 would reinstate the royalties on Gulf oil and gas production when prices rise to a level - over $34.73/barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas - where proponents of the bill argue incentives are not necessary to encourage exploration. Holders of the Clinton-era leases would be required to re-negotiate the lease terms to include the royalty provision or be banned from bidding on future Gulf exploration leases. Fixing the mistake in the old leases is expected to raise over $6 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. H.R. 2771 would also end a special manufacturing tax deduction for oil and gas companies enacted by Congress in 2004. The deduction reduces the effective corporate tax rate for U.S. oil and gas production to 32% from the 35% standard for other manufacturing industries. The Democratic bill would bump the rate for the oil and gas sector back up to the normal 35% rate, raising another $8-10 billion in revenue. The revenue raised by these two provisions would be pumped into tax incentives and bonds for renewable energy, efficiency, biofuels and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as well as investments in research and development of innovative clean energy technologies contained in the two clean energy bills. The administration statement also says President Bush strongly opposes provisions in Title VII of H.R. 3221 which the administration claims would have a significant negative impact on current Federal efforts to increase traditional and renewable domestic production. While Title VII does include some provisions for studying and recommending efforts to reduce impacts of wind power development on wildlife and birds - a provision that as far as I know is not opposed by the American Wind Energy Association - the bulk of Title VII focuses on ensuring greater accountability for oil and gas companies drilling on public lands and also includes the provision fixing the Gulf oil and gas royalties problem discussed above and it is presumably these provisions that have drawn the administration's ire. Finally, the Bush Administration strongly opposes provisions in both bills that would require companies to pay workers prevailing wages if they receive federal tax incentives authorized under the clean energy bills. Apparently harnessing and promoting American innovation to increase our energy independence and start on a path to a new, clean energy future while creating thousands of new jobs, reducing American's energy bills and slowing rising greenhouse gas emissions doesn't pass muster with the Bush Administration, so long these efforts are funded by removing billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies for his friends in the oil and gas industries - even while they are enjoying record profits. And god forbid we require companies to pay workers prevailing wages if they want to enjoy federal tax beaks! That's downright un-American! The message the Bush Administration sends in this Statement of Administration Policy seems perfectly clear to me: President Bush is on the side of oil and gas special interests, is fine with paying workers below prevailing wages and will stifle efforts to advance American energy independence, build a new energy economy and tackle climate change, even if those efforts are supported by a majority of United States Congress and the American people. We've all known Mr. Bush is to put it nicely particularly chummy with his old oil and gas industry friends (others might say he's in the oil and gas industry's pockets ), but I'm not sure there's ever been a clearer statement of where his loyalties lie than this latest Statement of Administration Policy! This is simply despicable. I hope the House calls President Bush's bluff and passes the two clean energy bills tomorrow. Let Mr. Bush explain to the American people why, after Congress finally passes bi-partisan legislation to address rising energy costs, increase American energy independence, create a new energy economy thousands of new jobs and take a first step towards solving the Climate Crisis, he decided to veto the bill in order to protect an industry recording obscene and record profits while American's pay an arm and a leg at the pump. Go for it Mr. President... http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Bush-Administration-Threatens-Veto-of-House-Clean-Energy-Bills?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:29:45 -0400 alternative energy alternative fuels biofuels climate change climate change policy energy efficiency Energy policy federal policy global warming renewable energy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Bush-Administration-Tries-to-Pull-a-Fast-One-with-Stealth-Release-of-US-Climate-Action-Report9371?rsstype=group&gid=1 Anyone in the news biz (or anyone who's a rabid West Wing fan like me) knows that bad news is always released on Friday afternoons. Why? Because nobody's paying attention to the newspapers on Saturday morning. Well it's a good thing that bloggers don't operate on normal news cycles because last Friday, the Bush Administration tried to pull a fast one on the American public with a Friday afternoon stealth release of the 19 month-overdue and not too cheery Fourth U.S. Climate Action Report. Luckily, Kevin Grandia of the great site, DeSmogBlog, and Rich Piltz at ClimateScienceWatch were paying close attention and spotted the stealthy and quiet news release. On Monday Mr. Grandia wrote, The [Climate Action Report] was released last Friday (July 27th) by the Department of State in the form of this media memo. The release was not mentioned in the department's daily press briefing, nor is it mentioned in the news section of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality website. But if President Bush is so proud of his administration's efforts to tackle climate change, why was it trying to quietly release the US Climate Action Report without anyone noticing? Well, Mr. Grandia takes us on a closer look at the report, which was submitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the precursor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol) as per Framework requirements. Mr Grandia writes:It's no wonder the Justice Department avoided any press attention over the latest US Climate Action Report released on Friday. You can find the whole report here - I've taken the liberty of highlighting some of the more interesting quotes that I'm sure the White House would love to sweep under the rug... From the section Greenhouse Gas Inventory: (pdf) In 2004, total greenhouse gas emissions rose to 7,074.4 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent, which was 15.8% above 1990 emissions. From 1990 through 2004, US greenhouse gas emissions increased by 15.8 percent. Specifically, C02 emissions increased by 20 percent, CH4 and N20 emissions decreased by 10 and 2 percent, respectively. From the section Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions: (pdf) Over the same period from 2002 to 2012, while GHG [greenhouse gas] intensity is declining, total gross GHG emissions are expected to rise by 11 percent. Table 5-2 in the same section reports that even if the US fully implements its climate programs and measures, total greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise between 2012 and 2020. From 2000 to 2020 total C02 emissions [from energy consumption] - as calculated with Full Implementation of Climate Program Measures - are projected to rise by 17 percent... From the section Impacts and Adaptation: (pdf) ...despite increases in winter precipitation, in many places a large percentage of the traditionally snow-covered areas of the northwestern United States has experienced a decline in spring snow-pack, especially since the middle of the 20th century. The warmer temperatures projected with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to exacerbate present risks of drought in the United States. In recognition of significant potential impacts from climate change, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act states: 'Because global warming may result in substantial sea-level rise with serious adverse effects in the coastal zone, coastal states must anticipate and plan for such an occurrence. Great news, eh? And a sure sign that the Bush Administration is really taking care of the global warming problem for us. No need to worry... Sarcasm aside, trying to bury this report is just another in a long line of deliberate (and despicable) lengths the Bush Administration has gone to delay action on climate change as long as possible. First it was all about how we couldn't really be certain humans were the cause - the IPCC sure blew that out of the water. Then it was about how devastating any action would be to the economy - former World Bank Cheif Economist Sir Nicholas Stern sure had a good response to that. Now an administration report finally has to admit that: Administration policies have been a dramatic failure and global warming pollution is still on the rise in the United States; Temperatures are indeed rising; and That's not a good sign for the snow-melt reliant Pacific Northwest, drought-prone communities across the country, and at-risk coastal communities, etc. etc. etc. In other words, the administration itself is admitting in this report that their policies - even the Full Implementation of Climate Program Measures proposed by the administration - are failing to stop the rise in global temperatures, failing to even reduce America's contribution to the problem, and in so doing, putting Americans in harms way. That's sure a report I'd want to bury. And if it wasn't for the watchful eye of bloggers like DeSmogBlog's Mr. Grandia and ClimateScienceWatch's Mr. Piltz - and the folks at the Student Operated Press, the only news 'outlet' to cover the report's release - they would have succeeded. Nice try Mr. President. [A hat tip to Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog for spreading the word on this story] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/08/Bush-Administration-Tries-to-Pull-a-Fast-One-with-Stealth-Release-of-US-Climate-Action-Report9371?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:14:13 -0400 climate change climate change policy Energy policy federal policy global warming http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Lawsuit-Takes-Aim-at-Proposed-Montana-Coal-Plant-and-Federal-Financing-of-New-Coal-Plants?rsstype=group&gid=1 A trio of environmental groups has taken aim at a proposed 250 MW pulverized coal plant near Great Falls, Montana in an effort to block the plant's construction and end federal financing of coal plants for rural electric cooperatives. As reported in May (see previous post), a Depression-era program to help electrify rural areas is still providing low-interest loans to rural electric cooperatives to build new coal-fired power plants. This government program, the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service, is often the only source of financing for rural electric cooperatives with less than perfect credit ratings and is a major force behind the rush to build dozens of new coal plants in the U.S. These new conventional, or pulverized coal plants spew carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas and contributor to global warming. The suit, brought by the Montana Environmental Information Center, Citizens for Clean Energy and the Sierra Club, argues that the USDA's Rural Utilities Service did not consider greenhouse-gas emissions in its analysis of seven coal-fired power plants it is financing across the country, including the 250 MW Highwood Generating Station near Great Falls, according to Northwest utility industry newsletter, Clearing Up (subscription required). In May, RUS agreed to provide 85% of the Highwood plant's $600 million price tag on behalf of the Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, an association of small Montana electric cooperatives. President Franklin D. Roosevelt formed the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in 1935 during the Great Depression to help electrify rural America and the program has continued providing low-interest loans for power plant construction to this day. The lawsuit argues that the program is outdated and is no longer fulfilling it's mission. RUS is currently financing seven coal-fired power plants in Idaho, Wyoming, Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida and Kentucky, Clearing Up reports, totaling 3,441 MW. While rural communities now generally have access to affordable electricity, RUS still has considerable funds at its disposal to spend in areas that in many cases are no longer rural, the suit says. RUS has provided over $1 billion in low-interest loans for projects serving booming suburbs of Atlanta, GA and Tampa, FL for example, just one sign of how much things have changed since the RUS was created over seven decades ago. The suit alleges that RUS did not consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions spewing from the pulverized coal plants the program is financing and the impact those emissions will have on global warming. The suit's plaintiffs claim that RUS is therefore in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's recently ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that affirms that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and that the harms of climate change are serious and well recognized (see previous post). The Highwood plant alone would emit 2.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, according to the suit, and annual emissions from two other RUS-financed plants in Missouri and Florida would total 12.5 million metric tons. RUS has never fully considered how financing coal plants ... contributes to climate change, the lawsuit said. A powerful lobbying force, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is fighting to keep the federal financing program intact amidst opposition from environmentalists. The organization recently deployed 3,000 members on Capitol Hill to lobby Congress in support of the program. The Cooperative Association argues that the loans for new coal plants are needed to keep electricity cheap and reliable in rural areas. Environmentalists counter that the subsidized loans and artificially cheap power removes any pressure for the rural co-ops to promote energy efficiency or aggressively tap renewable resources. They also point out that rural coops already rely on coal for 80 percent of their electricity, compared with 50 percent for the national average, and electricity demand at rural co-ops is growing at twice the national rate. Federal financing, if necessary, could also be directed to low-emitting, climate-friendly energy sources or increased energy conservation and efficiency, rather than dirty, coal-fired power plants. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Lawsuit-Takes-Aim-at-Proposed-Montana-Coal-Plant-and-Federal-Financing-of-New-Coal-Plants?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:48:14 -0400 climate change climate change policy coal Energy policy federal policy global warming Montana http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/UN-Secretary-General-Makes-Climate-Change-Top-Priority?rsstype=group&gid=1 United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for urgent international action to slow global warming, marking it as a top priority of his tenure. Ban pointed out the devastation wrought in developing countries because of global warming's impacts. Those same countries don't have the resources to cope with the effects, and yet have contributed to least to the cause of the problem. Ban laid out a clear timetable for action while California recently to learn about the state's aggressive campaign to cut climate change emissions. The General Assembly meets this week to discuss the issue, and Ban will convene a high-level meeting on September 24th in New York. Negotiations will begin in Bali in December. Key to those negotiations is hammering out a plan for a post-Kyoto Protocol world. The framework expires in 2012, and Ban said a successor pact must be ready for ramification in 2009 to allow time for nations to pass it into law. Earlier this month, the Secretary-General met with President Bush to discuss global warming. Ban called is a very good meeting and that Bush now realizes the seriousness of the problem. However U.S. leadership on the issue is critical and the status quo cannot be an option. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/UN-Secretary-General-Makes-Climate-Change-Top-Priority?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:26:10 -0400 global warming united nations climate change Kyoto Protocol emissions http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Florida-Governor-Gets-In-Global-Warming-Game---Executive-Orders-Will-Tackle-States-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions?rsstype=group&gid=1 Recognizing the state's particular vulnerability to the threats of climate change, Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed three Executive Orders, tackle state's greenhouse gas emissions with a bold, multi-prong approach. Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed three Executive Orders on July 13th, establishing a multi-pronged strategy to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions. The Orders set statewide greenhouse gas emissions targets and call for increased energy efficiency, an increased use of clean, renewable energy sources and regulation of vehicle tailpipe emissions. I am persuaded that global climate change is one of the most important issues that we will face this century, Governor Crist said. With almost 1,200 miles of coastline and the majority of our citizens living near that coastline, Florida is more vulnerable to rising ocean levels and violent weather patterns than any other state [see graphic above left]. The three Executive Orders are as follows [summary from Green Car Congress:) [Executive Order 07-126:] Leadership by Example: Immediate Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Florida State Government. This order requires the state government first to measure its own greenhouse gas emissions and develop a Governmental Carbon Scorecard. The state government is then to work to reduce its emissions 10% by 2012, 25% by 2017, and 40% by 2025. To achieve that goal, state buildings constructed in the future will be energy efficient and include solar panels whenever possible. Office space leased in the future must be in energy-efficient buildings as well. Any purchased state vehicles should be fuel efficient and use ethanol and biodiesel fuels when available. State government will also seek to partner with an energy-efficient rental-car company for the 2009 contract. [Executive Order 07-127:] Immediate Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions within Florida. This order directs the adoption of maximum emission levels of greenhouse gases for electric utilities. The standard requires a reduction of emissions to 2000 levels by 2017, to 1990 levels by 2025, and by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Florida will also adopt the California motor vehicle emission standards, pending approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency waiver. The standard is a 22% reduction in vehicle emissions by 2012 and a 30% reduction by 2016. Florida will also require energy-efficient consumer appliances to increase efficiency by 15% of current standards. Governor Crist also requested that the Public Service Commission adopt a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020, with a strong focus on solar and wind energy. [Executive Order 07-128:] Florida Governor's Action Team on Energy and Climate Change. Governor Crist will appoint diverse stakeholders to a Governor's Action Team on Energy and Climate Change. Team members will create a Florida Climate Change Action Plan that will include strategies beyond today's Executive Orders to reduce emissions, including recommendations for proposed legislation for consideration during the 2008 Legislative Session and beyond. I will bring together the brightest minds to begin working on a plan for Florida to explore groundbreaking technologies and strategies that will place our state at the forefront of a growing world-wide movement to reduce greenhouse gases. Florida will provide not only the policy and technological advances, but the moral leadership, to allow us to overcome this monumental challenge. - Governor Crist. The Governor's Executive Orders make Florida the thirteenth state in the nation to adopt the California greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions standards (see map below, from Green Car Congress). The thirteen states planning to adopt the California tailpipe standards are awaiting a federal waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency that would allow them to implement the regulations. The EPA concluded public hearings on the waiver at the end of May, but has yet to issue a decision. US Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) recently introduced a bill designed to force an EPA decision on the waiver within 30 days of the passage of the bill or by September 30th at the latest. Florida also joins 14 other states with emissions reduction targets or mandatory emissions reduction law on the books (see previous post). If implemented, the provisions on the Orders mark several firsts for a Southern state, including the first Southern state to adopt the California GHG tailpipe standards, the first Southern state to adopt a Renewable Portfolio Standard and the first Southern state to set greenhouse gas reduction targets. As usual, more and more states continue to lead the way on the climate change regulations while we await comprehensive action from the federal government. Adding Florida to the list of 'climate leader states' is an important milestone. As noted above, Florida is the first Southern state to get in the game. Additionally, as the wonderful mapmakers at Sightline have illustrated (see previous post), Florida's emissions alone are not insignificant, even in global terms. The emissions of the states of Florida and Georgia combined are roughly the same as the total emissions of the entire nation of France, according to Sightline. Bravo to Governor Crist and to Floridians for taking a leadership position and joining the fight to solve the climate crisis! [A hat tip to Green Car Congress, and an apology for the tardy reporting on this major announcement. Work and the real world have conspired to limit my blogging time these past two weeks...] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Florida-Governor-Gets-In-Global-Warming-Game---Executive-Orders-Will-Tackle-States-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:08:45 -0400 alternative energy climate change climate change policy energy conservation energy efficiency Energy policy Florida global warming state policy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Cleantech-Adoption-amp-Worst-Case-Environmentalism?rsstype=group&gid=1 There's a slice of the environmental movement that believes, as many people before have believed with Mutual Assured (Nuclear) Destruction, and Y2k, and other assorted potential disasters that the disasters are not potential, but assured. They feel they're being realistic in their forecasts, at their most optimistic when they say that humanity may have a hope of survival. It's possible that they're right, and it's certain that they're saying something crucial about our current rates of consumption and so on. The problem is, their message is the absolute opposite of attractive. The worst-case scenarios might make for motivated activism out of a small segment of the population, and in one sense, that worked quite well for Y2k. What could have been disastrous was mitigated into nothingness by correct action on the part of the people in a position to make changes. What was different, of course, about Y2k is that there would be almost zero public impact, unless the effort failed. Correctly, the worst-case crowd is saying that everyone must change how they live. Where the message fails is in reporting that those changes must take the form of great sacrifices. In reality, no one wants to hear about the sacrifices they must make. Dire or else... statements do little to sway public opinion. Certain circles will be convinced, but others will reject it all out of sheer cussedness, or an unwillingness to believe what people from one end of the political spectrum happen to be saying, even if it's as simple as, The sky is blue. Which is why I found it kind of neat that Community Energy engineered a free beer drive to encourage users to switch over to clean, wind-powered energy. The math still doesn't work--the switchers are going to be paying $4 to $7 a month extra on their utility bill in exchange for $20 worth of beer--but that's not exactly the point. The point is switching, adoption of cleantech, is made to look attractive, trendy, hip. The way in which the message is presented will be as important as the message itself. This concept has been around as long as advertising, and it's good to see that the cleantech movement has finally come around. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Cleantech-Adoption-amp-Worst-Case-Environmentalism?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:20:29 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Throw-Another-Global-Warming-Bill-on-the-Barbie?rsstype=group&gid=1 Another piece of legislation aimed at cutting climate change emissions was unveiled in Congress on Wednesday. Sponsored by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), the bill creates a cap-and-trade system of carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Although the Low Carbon Economy Act isn't as ambitious as other bills before Congress, it does have something the other bills don't: broad support. In addition to being bipartisan, supporters include unions like the AFL-CIO, the United Auto Workers, the United Mine Workers. Union officials said they were satisfied that the bill would make costs bearable for carbon polluters and penalize foreign countries that didn't do enough to control their emissions. Several utilities, including Duke Energy also support the bill. Duke CEO James Rogers said that while the bill isn't perfect, it does chart a path towards a low-carbon future while keeping the economy strong. But to get that labor and corporate support, the bill had to put limits on the price industry would pay for CO2 permits at $10. In order to get the two Republican Senators from Alaska on board, it also includes billions of dollars to help the state cope with climate change's effects on roads, bridges, and coastal areas. The Low Carbon Economy Act caps emissions at 2006 levels beginning in 2020, and 1990 levels in 2030. The cap-and-trade system would grant permits to industries like oil refineries, manufacturing facilities and coal plants. Not everyone likes the bill: The global warming director for the Sierra Club, Dan Becker, said it was worth than nothing. But the climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, David Doniger, said the bill was at least evidence that Congress was getting the message on global warming. Although it probably won't pass, it's at least a good starting point. Let's hope so. via the New York Times http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Throw-Another-Global-Warming-Bill-on-the-Barbie?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:42:43 -0400 global warming policy climate change carbon cap-and-trade http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Oregon-Legislature-Wraps-Up-Landmark-Session-for-Clean-Energy?rsstype=group&gid=1 The 2007 Oregon Legislature closed a landmark session advancing clean energy legislation and putting Oregon on the map as a clean energy leader. The Oregon Legislature wrapped up it's 75th Legislative Assembly on June 28th, ending a session that can only be considered a landmark year for clean energy and the environment. The 2006 Elections saw Democrats strengthen their majority in the Senate and squeak out a one vote majority in the House while Oregonians re-elected Governor Ted Kulongoski who made clean energy a top priority of his second term. The Governor and the Legislature certainly delivered this year, passing a slough of bills this session promoting renewable energy generation, renewable transportation fuels, increased energy efficiency and even took an initial step towards addressing climate change. Here's a recap of the flurry of activity in Salem this session: Renewable Energy Standard: Perhaps the most high profile, and arguably the most important, piece of clean energy legislation to pass this session was the 25% by 2025 Renewable Energy Standard legislation, the Oregon Renewable Energy Act (SB 838). The standard enacted by the Act requires Oregon's three largest utilties - Portland General Electric, Pacific Power and Light (PacifiCorp) and the Eugene Water and Electric Board - to acquire at least 25% of their electricity from clean, homegrown renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and ocean energy by the year 2025. The utilities face interim targets of 5% by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020 as well. Oregon's numerous smaller publicly-owned utilities are required to meet smaller standards of just 5% or 10% by 2025, depending on their size. However, if any of these utilities invest in new coal-fired power plants, they lose their exemption from the full standard and must meet the full 25% by 2025 requirement. Oregon's public utilities had argued that the 25% standard was unnecessary for them, since they relied largely on hydropower to meet most of their load. This provision provides a strong incentive to put their money where their mouths are and stay away from investments in dirty, coal-fired power plants. The Oregon Renewable Energy Act will require Oregon utilities to generate approximately 1,500 average megawatts (aMW) of renewable energy generation by 2025, enough to meet the needs of 1.25 million average Oregon homes. Increasing Oregon's use of clean, homegrown renewable energy sources will also strengthen Oregon's economy, increase the state's energy independence, help hedge against volatile fossil fuel costs and make a major dent in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector. Given this win-win-win-win-win situation, it's no wonder the Oregon Renewable Energy Act was supported by a remarkably broad and diverse range of constituencies, received strong, bipartisan support in both the Senate and House and was hailed by Governor Kulongoski as the most significant environmental legislation ... in more than 30 years. In addition to establishing the Renewable Energy Standards, the Act requires all Oregon utilities to offer their customers a voluntary green power product, extends the public purpose charge on PGE and Pacific Power customers' bills to 2025 and re-dedicates the renewable energy portion of those funds to support small, 'community-scale' renewable energy projects less than 20 megawatts. If you're curious, there's plenty more on the Oregon Renewable Energy Act at the Powering Oregon's Future site. [Full Disclosure: I maintain the Powering Oregon's Future site and am responsible for much of its content. I also worked directly to help pass the Oregon Renewable Energy Act in my position at the Renewable Northwest Project]. Biofuels: Succeeding where it failed last session, the Oregon Legislature also passed a bill promoting the use of renewable biofuels in the transportation sector. The biofuels bill, HB 2210, includes a package of tax incentives promoting the production of biofuels and feedstocks in Oregon. The bill also includes a renewable fuels standard requiring the use of ethanol and biodiesel in gasoline and diesel fuels sold in the state, but only after biofuel production in the Oregon and the Northwest reaches a substantial level, to ensure that the standard will support a local, homegrown biofuels industry. Fuel stations will be required to sell at least a 2% blend of biodiesel in their diesel fuel once biodiesel production in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana reaches at least 5 million gallons per year and a 5% blend once production in the Northwest states reaches 15 million gallons per year. A 10% ethanol blending requirement will also kick in for gasoline sold in the state once ethanol production within Oregon reaches 90 million gallons per year. The bill also directs the state government to use biofuels in fleet vehicles and stationary backup power generators and provides a $200/year tax incentive to individuals who use biodiesel (B99/B100) and ethanol (E85) for transportation and solid biomass from agricultural or forestry wastes for heating. The biofuels bill received very strong support, passing the House 53-4 and the Senate 24-3. Clean Energy Tax Incentives: The Legislature also expanded two popular and successful tax incentives supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency investments. Eventually rolled into an omnibus tax package, HB 3201 , expansions of Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit and Residential Energy Tax Credit passed with unanimous support in the House early in the session and finally passed the Senate in the final days of the session. The tax bill expands the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC), which businesses and corporations can claim on investments in solar, wind and other renewable energy systems, energy efficiency investments as well as investments in manufacturing plants used to produce clean energy technologies or components. The credit is expanded from a credit worth 35% of eligible project costs, capped at $3.5 million, to a whopping 50% credit, capped at $10 million. The BETC expansion also includes a new $9,000 tax credit available to homebuilders for solar electric and solar water heating systems installed on new construction single family dwellings. Additionally, the tax bill expands the Residential Energy Tax Credit, available to homeowners who invest in renewable energy systems, efficient appliances, weatherization and other home efficiency retrofits. Homeowners can now claim the credit on more than one investment in a given year, allowing them to claim a credit on both a solar electric system and a solar water heating system installed in the same year, for example. The Legislature also passed two other tax bills aimed at clearing up important problems in the tax code. One bill, SB 819, fixed a problem in the interaction between the Business Energy Tax Credit and Oregon's corporate income tax 'kicker' refund which hampered businesses ability to take full advantage of the credit. The other bill, known as the Solar Teamwork Bill (HB 3488), amended the exemption given on property taxes leveled against the increased property value due to renewable energy investments, like the installation of solar arrays. The exemption now applies to systems installed by a third party on a property-owner's property, as long as that system is a net metering system or otherwise designed to primarily offset on-site electricity use. This provision will help encourage distributed generation for renewable energy by not discouraging building owners from allowing alternative energy systems to be installed on their buildings because of increased property taxes. HB 3488 also directs the Oregon Public Utility Commission to authorize the state's two large investor-owned utilities to provide low interest loans for customers who install solar arrays. Solar on Public Buildings: Rounding out a series of measures that ought secure Oregon's position as a leading pro-solar state, HB 2620 also passed this session and provides that public improvement contracts for construction or major renovations of public buildings appropriate at least 1.5 percent of the total contract price to pay for the installation of solar energy technology, including solar electric, solar water heating and solar space heating systems. It's solar on every public building in Oregon from now on! Energy Efficiency: A bill establishing minimum efficiency standards for a number of additional home and commercial appliances not previously covered by efficiency standards passed the Legislature this session as well. While not including as many appliances as originally hoped, SB 375 will help Oregonians save energy, reducing our energy costs and environmental impacts. Unfortunately, a bill requiring all major facility projects to be planned, designed, constructed and renovated to meet sustainable building standards died in the Senate Ways and Means committee and a bill requiring the state government to reduce energy use 20% by 2015 passed the House 44-14 but died in a Senate committee. [Well we had to leave something left to do next session, right?] Global Warming: Last but definitely not least, the 2007 Legislature passed it's first piece of legislation specifically addressing global warming in Oregon! Originally seen as a long shot, three global warming bills were introduced early this session in the hopes that the large clean energy agenda might move quickly, allowing the Legislature to move on to specifically tackle global warming. In reality, the measures were introduced largely to lay the groundwork for upcoming sessions, and while public hearings were held on the bills, it wasn't expected that they would pass until future sessions. Well, while two bills were indeed dropped after two hearings, as the session neared it's end, it looked like one, the Global Warming Integration Act, just might have some legs and the Act, HB 3543 managed to squeak passed the finish line right before the end of the session. The Global Warming Integration Act codifies greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals (10% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75% below 1990 levels by 2020) and creates the Oregon Global Warming Commission which will coordinate local and state efforts to halt growth of greenhouse gas emissions. It will also fund a new Oregon Climate Change Research Institute within the Oregon University System. The bill not only passed, it passed with a bipartisan 40-16 vote in the House with moneys fully appropriated to not only fund the commission's activities, but also fully fund the research center. Not at bad ending to a busy session for clean energy advocates and a hopeful sign for the chances of future global warming legislation! Next Steps: In the face of such a landmark session for clean energy legislation - clearly the most significant session for energy legislation since Oregon's electricity restructuring law passed in 1999 - you might be wondering what's left to do to complete Oregon's transition to a clean energy state? First, while the clean energy provisions passed this year will certainly make a major dent in the state's greenhouse gas emissions and help promote a sustainable energy future, work has just begun to specifically tackle climate change. The Global Warming Integration Act is a nice step forward, but far from the end of the road, and the Legislature is likely to consider a cap and trade program and an emissions performance standard, both designed to limit global warming pollution from the electricity sector, when next they meet (perhaps as early as a short special session in early 2008 - the Oregon Legislature normally meet biennially). Additionally, Oregon would probably be smart to follow in the footsteps of other states pushing renewable energy development, including Colorado and Texas, by working to establish renewable energy resource zones and expedite investments in electricity transmission to tap the resources in those zones and bring them to population centers. I hope the Legislature also revisits the two energy efficiency and green building bills that died this session and takes a hard look at how Oregonians can push energy efficiency to the max. Stronger building codes that include advancements in sustainable and energy efficient design would make sense, and there are always updates to appliance and lighting codes that can help us squeeze more out of the same amount of energy. A Session to be Remembered: While there's always more work to be done, the 2007 Oregon Legislature should go down in history as the year Oregon took a giant step towards a sustainable energy future. 2007 was clearly the 'Year of Clean Energy' in Salem. Let's hope 2009 (or even 2008) is the 'Year of Global Warming Solutions'... [A very appreciative tip of the hat to the folks at the Oregon League of Conservation Voters' SalemWatch newsletter whose diligent reporting kept me up to date all session on the wide range of clean energy bills moving through the legislature.] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Oregon-Legislature-Wraps-Up-Landmark-Session-for-Clean-Energy?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:01:21 -0400 alternative energy alternative fuels biofuels biomass climate change climate change policy energy efficiency Energy policy global warming Oregon solar state policy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Dance-Dance-Sustainably?rsstype=group&gid=1 Okay, how cool is this? What are dance clubs but carbon generators, right? All those lights, the neon, the speaker stacks, the a/c working double overtime to keep up with the sweaty twentysomethings bumping and grinding on the dance floor. But hey, wait, that bumping and grinding is energy, right? And what's it doing but making people all hot and sweaty, just sort of burning off as heat. So why not take some of that energy and put it to work? Well, that's the idea of the nightclub featured in this YouTube video. Found in Denmark, the concept is wonderfully simple and in some ways ahead of its time. But if you want to look for the future of sustainable structures and sustainable functions spaces, there it is. Innovative concepts like these will provide much of the excitement and verve of the green movement, something which it desperately needs. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Dance-Dance-Sustainably?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:17:10 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Hawaii-and-New-Jersey-Laws-Set-Mandatory-Greenhouse-Gas-Reductions?rsstype=group&gid=1 States Continue to Lead in Absence of Federal Action The legislatures of Hawaii and New Jersey both recently passed laws specifying mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, joining California (see previous post) as the second and third states in the nation, respectively, to enact mandatory greenhouse gas laws. Eleven other states have set greenhouse gas reduction targets and four of them - Maine, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon (see upcoming post) - passed legislation this year setting those reduction targets in state statute, according to this CDM Knowledge Center update on state greenhouse gas laws and actions. The other state targets were issued by governor's executive order. Like California's similarly named law, Hawaii's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2007 (HB 226 CD1), declares that the state shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels at or below 1990 levels by 2020, an estimated 25-30% cut over business-as-usual projections and a roughly 15% cut over current emissions levels. The bill, calls for the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism to update greenhouse gas emission estimates for the base-line year of 1990 and to estimate current emissions. It also establishes a 10-member greenhouse gas emissions reduction task force to draft practical, technically feasible and cost-effective ways to do achieve the reductions targets by the end of 2009 and appropriates a half a million dollars in fiscal 2008 and 2009 to pay for necessary departmental and committee work. The law specifies that rules establishing greenhouse gas emissions limits necessary to meet the 2020 target must be adopted by December 31st, 2011, with monitoring and enforcement of these rules beginning January 1st, 2012. The bill passed the Hawaii legislature with strong, bi-partisan support, passing by a 48-2 margin in the House and 23-2 in the Senate, according to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Jeff Mikulina, state Sierra Club director and a proponent of the legislation, called global climate change the greatest threat to Hawaii's prosperity and truly the greatest challenge of our generation. The Legislature's approval is making a promise to future generations that we're serious about addressing this critical issue, Mikulina said. Hawaii's Governor Linda Lingle signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2007 into law on June 30th, Green Car Congress reports [although I can't find a press release on the signing; the Governor had until July 10th to sign the law, veto it, or let it become law without her signature]. New Jersey's Governor Jon S. Corzine signed a similar greenhouse gas reduction law on Friday, July 7th. The legislation, the Global Warming Response Act of 2007 (A 3301) also sets a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions not to exceed 1990 levels by 2020, a roughly 20% reduction [over current emissions levels I believe, although this could be business-as-usual 2020 levels; the press release is unclear]. The Act also sets a longer-term target of an 80% reduction in emissions below 2006 levels by 2050, making New Jersey the first state to enact a long-term greenhouse gas emissions limit. The legislation tasks the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to work with the Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and other stakeholders to evaluate methods to meet and exceed the 2020 target reductions. The Department of Environmental Protection is also charged with establishing rules and regulations establishing a greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting program to monitor and report Statewide greenhouse gas emissions no later than January 1st, 2009. DEP will report progress towards the target reductions to the Governor and the Legislature no less than every two years and if necessary will recommend additional actions to reach the targets. To further reduce emissions, the order calls for the Director of Energy Savings to develop targets and implementation strategies for reducing energy use by state facilities and vehicles fleets. In the absence of leadership on the federal level, the burden of reducing greenhouse gases has now fallen upon the states, Governor Corzine said in a press release. I'm proud that New Jersey is one of the first among a handful of states that are leading the nation to combat global warming and I hope more states will follow in our model. [Table source: Green Car Congress] States continue to out pace the federal government on taking action against the climate crisis. In addition to these greenhouse gas reduction targets and requirements, 16 states (and two Canadian province) have partnered to develop regional initiatives to cap and trade emissions from the electricity sector. Ten Northeastern states have partnered to form the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which aims to establish a regional program that would cap and then begin to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector 10% below current levels by 2019, roughly the same as 1990 levels and a 35% reduction over business-as-usual electricity-sector emissions projections (see previous posts here and here). RGGI has developed a model rule that partner states can adopt to cap electricity sector emissions and participate in a trading program with other RGGI states. Maine has already adopted legislation authorizing participation in RGGI's cap and trade program, according to CDM's Knowledge Center. The other states must enact authorizing legislation before the RGGI cap and trade program takes effect on January 1st 2009. While the program initially only applies to the electricity sector, it may be extended to cover other major sources of emissions in the future. Not to be outdone by the Northeastern states, a partnership of six Western states also formed this year to tackle climate change and develop a regional cap and trade program on electricity-sector emissions. Originally launched in February 2007 with five members (see previous post), with the inclusion of British Columbia, Manitoba and Utah, the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative (WRCAI) now includes six Western states and two Canadian provinces, making it an international partnership. Each partner state or province has agreed to identify, evaluate and implement ways to collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region. The initiative requires partners to set an overall regional goal to reduce emissions, develop a market-based, multi-sector mechanism to help achieve that goal - i.e. a regional cap and trade program - and participate in a cross-border greenhouse gas (GHG) registry. 31 states plus British Columbia and Manitoba launched the GHG registry in May (see previous post). At this point, the WRCIA states lag behind the RGGI states in developing a concrete cap and trade proposal, although with California leading the way, most of the WRCIA states are pursuing or have already enacted renewable energy standards (see previous posts here and here), regulations on vehicle tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (see previous posts here, here, and here), emissions performance standards (see previous post here) and other policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from key sectors (see previous post here). It is likely that that WRCIA states will link their carbon market with the RGGI states (see previous post and perhaps with other European countries (see ) participating in cap and trade programs as part of their implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition to these actions, 12 states have now adopted California-style tailpipe emissions standards for greenhouse gases (see previous post) and 23 states now have renewable portfolio standards requiring utilities to increase the amount of renewable energy in their electricity mix (see previous posts here and here). [Image: Twelve states (dark green) have now joined California in enacting tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks. Five more (yellow) are actively considering joining. (Click to enlarge).] While federal climate change legislation is clearly a high priority and will ultimately be both more impacting and likely more effective than a collection of state or regional actions, these proactive state efforts to lead the way ahead by enacting policy solutions to the climate crisis should not be dismissed. As this previous post illustrates, states have emissions footprints as large as many other countries, and their actions are not insignificant. Furthermore, these state actions help drive federal action by serving as 'laboratories of democracy' and create sizable markets that move businesses to develop new products (like efficient cars and trucks). They may also ultimately encourage federal action in another way: by encouraging large business players to push for standardized federal legislation to preempt a patchwork of state policies. There has already been evidence of this phenomenon as business interests are advocating for a nationwide, economy-wide cap and trade policy that would preempt or replace state and regional policies mandating emissions reductions. Congress is expected to take up climate change legislation this fall. Resources CDM Knowledge Center Regulatory Update: Status of State Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, Legislation, and Advisory Commissions , July 1st 2007 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Hawaii-and-New-Jersey-Laws-Set-Mandatory-Greenhouse-Gas-Reductions?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:15:01 -0400 California climate change climate change policy Energy policy global warming Hawaii New Jersey state policy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/What-It-Takes-to-Be-Carbon-Neutral?rsstype=group&gid=1 A popular newspaper in Scotland, The Scotsman, has detailed what it will take for Britain to be carbon neutral within 20 years. I have said before that despite Al Gore's pleas, despite the awareness and scientific consensus on Global Warming, I do not see the world become carbon neutral as long as there are fossil fuels left to burn. Some highlights from the article drive that point home: Green Future Demands a Radical Shift in Lifestyles for British Meat-free menus, battery-operated cars and an end to affordable flights. These are among the radical visions outlined in a report which says Britain could be carbon neutral within 20 years - but only if major steps are taken to change our lifestyles. Tumble-dryers would disappear and an armada of wind turbines would need to be built around the coast to achieve the goal, says the research by scientists from the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT). But there is scepticism as to whether any of the scenarios suggested in the report are achievable. CAT says achieving such a drastic cut in emissions is possible and may be the only way to tackle climate change. Paul Allen, CAT's development director, said: What we are saying is that we need a huge programme, a bit like the US space project in the Sixties.Now, for some details: Among the major effects would be that electric, battery-operated cars would quickly overtake use of the internal combustion engine. Households would be forced to invest in ways to make their homes energy efficient, and switch from gas to biofuels or renewable electricity. But there would also be negative effects in terms of the lifestyle that people enjoy. Air travel would become far too expensive unless the industry pulls something out of the hat and finds a green fuel. And the diet of the country would have to change to include much more organically-grown, locally-produced vegetables, and less meat. The result of the new carbon economics would be to cut energy use by half, and this new demand would then be met entirely by a green supply. Tens of thousands of wind turbines would be built, mainly around Britain's shores, to provide 50 per cent of the country's new energy needs. The rest would come from a combination of biofuel combined heat and power stations, wave power, hydroelectricity and tidal schemes. Is that realistic? Tens of thousands of wind turbines. An end to air travel. Fewer steaks. Is it achievable? It may be achievable in a dictatorship, but not realistic in a democracy. People are not going to accept those consequences unless they are forced to. Also note that this is only for Great Britain, whose 60 million population is 1/5th that of the U.S. Furthermore, consider that UK citizens already only use half the per capita energy usage of the average U.S. citizen, and it soon becomes clear that carbon neutrality for the U.S., or the world, is a pipe dream. All of the Live Earth concerts in the world aren't going to change that. I fear that carbon dioxide concentrations will continue to climb, and the outcome of this atmospheric experiment is uncertain. Incidentally, there are a number of reader comments following the original article. If you think there is any possibility of realizing such a scheme, a quick review of the comments should put that notion to rest. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/What-It-Takes-to-Be-Carbon-Neutral?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:28:15 -0400 Al Gore global warming United Kingdom http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/The-Nation-States-of-Climate-Change---How-Your-State-Compares-to-Nations-on-Climate-Impact?rsstype=group&gid=1 Can an individual state really make a difference in the climate crisis? Will California,or New Jersey or Minnesota or Washington or Oregon or any of the other states that have taken proactive steps to rein in their greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of federal leadership really have an impact, or are they largely symbolic gestures? Well, the answer to that question will not doubt depend on how effective the policies are, but as this excellent map from Eric de Place (originally posted at Sightline) illustrates, the climate impacts of various U.S. states are the equivalent of entire nations, and state action is clearly meaningful. For each state, the above map shows a nation with equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from energy. Click on the image here to see the full map of the United States. How does your state compare? Eric de Place has this commentary on his map: When I've shown drafts to people, almost everyone wants to compare populations. The Western states population comparison is after the jump. The full data are here (xls). I find the full US map a bit overwhelming. Even more so when I realize that the 2003 population of the US - less than 300 million - has the same climate impact as the more than 1.5 billion people represented by the other countries listed on the map. So bravo to those states who have taken the lead on climate policies. And let's keep the pressure on Congress to step it up and enact comprehensive climate change legislation. It's time to do our part, to lead the nation in enacting solutions to the climate crisis. Several states have shown the way; now Congress must follow the path. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/The-Nation-States-of-Climate-Change---How-Your-State-Compares-to-Nations-on-Climate-Impact?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:42:29 -0400 climate change climate change activism climate change policy Energy policy federal policy global warming state policy http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Tri-Nation-Plan-to-Harness-Solar-Market?rsstype=group&gid=1 Business leaders from three continents are teaming up to manufacture and sell lower-cost photovoltaic solar panels. Signet Solar is a renewable energy startup based in Palo Alto, CA. It already has a R&D facility located in Dresden, Germany because of that nation's global leadership and market-friendly policies towards solar and wind power. Earlier this month, Signet also announced plans to build three manufacturing plants in India (where the future market for solar power will likely be huge). With this breadth of expertise, resources, and geography, combined with thin solar manufacturing equipment from Applied Materials (Silicon Valley's semiconductor tools giant), Signet hopes to build global partnerships to secure more of the solar power market share. Signet is betting that solar power will soon be as inexpensive to produce as traditional fossil fuels, either because of continued government incentives and subsidies or because of new costs applied to fossil fuels that reflect the global warming emission and damage they cause (such as a carbon tax). Nonetheless, solar manufacturing costs have been falling for years, and some industry analysts are cautiously predicting that within a decade, solar will reach grid parity and be just as inexpensive to produce as old, dirty methods of energy. At that point, explains Andrew Leonard of Solon.com, a market that has been growing like gangbusters for a decade will go absolutely bonkers. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/07/Tri-Nation-Plan-to-Harness-Solar-Market?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:45:28 -0400 Signet Solar solar power solar energy global warming climate change http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Hows-That-For-Recycling?rsstype=group&gid=1 So, what do you do with an old, decommissioned paper mill in the middle of New Hampshire? Why, turn it into a power plant, of course. Seems a little odd, but on second thought, maybe it's also a little obvious, especially if that power plant is going to be biomass-fueled. Paper mills specialize in taking in biomass (wood) and turning out a usable product, only this time the transportation will be one-way, and out will come nice, mostly clean electricity. The nice thing about biomass, of course, is that it's fairly renewable and most often comes from the waste of other biomass products like, you know, food. Using, say, leftover cornstalks after harvest, or the chips and shavings and such from a lumber mill, the plant could end up producing 60-70 MW just on leftovers. And they're even promising emissions capture! The other, huge upside is that little extra energy is going to go into making the plant over for its shiny new role in the New Hampshire economy. Whereas the construction of all new infrastructure is a very sticky hang-up for those advocating alternative energies (such as us here), the Berlin, NH plant will make extensive use of existing plant facilities, making the changeover from paper mill to power plant a much less intensive one than new construction. And looking at it from this perspective, it seems like an obvious thing to do. But it may not have been so obvious, which begs the question: what other obvious ideas are passing us by, and what can we do to capitalize on them? http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Hows-That-For-Recycling?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:09:26 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/EcoTalk-Off-The-Air?rsstype=group&gid=1 Okay, so the news is a little old, but I just got wind of it and I have to say I'm a little bummed. EcoTalk, a very popular green podcast/broadcast radio program, has gone off the air for the time being in the face of uncertain finances. Apparently they're looking for about $50,000 in donations and sponsorships/partnerships to get themselve back to stability and a regular production schedule. One of the biggest downsides to this citizen journalism/citizen activism type movements--be they blogs, podcasts, or what-have-you--is that so often they're not, themselves, economically sustainable. They're often labors of love, and so often the sources you count on the most for your information and informed commentary are in this chaotic connected world are as fickle as the fortunes of their owners. That's one reason these group blogs are nice, since you not only have a variety of voices, but a sort of team that can keep each other motivated and make up for any lapses. The big thing that I'll miss about EcoTalk until they can get going again is the relatively upbeat and anti-doom-and-gloom tone they took to much of their reporting. I've been a fan of that sort of approach in the eco sector, since there's been so much of the other that a positive and optimistic approach is rather refreshing. Not that I would want to try to dictate the tone here, but just as a reader I'm more inclined to lend a favorable ear to that kind of approach than one of constant gloom. Which is not to say that there's not things to be pessimistic about. Generally, I tend to be quite cynical over the ability of the US government (pick your branch or party) to take effective action on this topic, but then, I'm pretty pesimistic about them on virtually any topic. At any rate, if you are like me, and you like the positive outlook, I suggest you check out EcoTalk and at least support them through page hits if no other way. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/EcoTalk-Off-The-Air?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:35:36 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-On-China-China-Passes-United-States-as-Largest-Annual-Global-Warming-Polluter?rsstype=group&gid=1 China's annual greenhouse gas emissions seem to have passed the United States'. The U.S. will long remain largest cumulative contributor to global warming though. [From the Guardian (UK):] China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show. The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year (see previous post). But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes. Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the government agency who compiled the figures, said: There will still be some uncertainty about the exact numbers, but this is the best and most up to date estimate available. China relies very heavily on coal and all of the recent trends show their emissions going up very quickly. China's emissions were 2% below those of the US in 2005. Per head of population, China's pollution remains relatively low - about a quarter of that in the US and half that of the UK. The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires. Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot. Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions. To work out the emissions figures, Dr Oliver used data issued by the oil company BP earlier this month on the consumption of oil, gas and coal across the world during 2006, as well as information on cement production published by the US Geological Survey. Cement production, which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global CO2 production from fuel use and industrial sources. China's cement industry, which has rapidly expanded in recent years and now produces about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of the country's CO2 emissions. Dr Olivier calculated carbon dioxide emissions from each country's use of oil, gas and coal using UN conversion factors. China's surge beyond the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter's CO2 emissions during 2006, which analysts say is down to a slowing US economy. The announcement comes as international negotiations to produce a new climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012 are delicately poised. The US refused to ratify Kyoto partly because it made no demands on China, and one major sticking point of the new negotiations has been finding a way to include both nations, as well as other rapidly developing economies such as India and Brazil. Tony Blair believes the best approach is to develop national markets to cap and trade carbon, which could then be linked. Earlier this month, China unveiled its first national plan on climate change after two years of preparation by 17 government ministries (see previous post). Rather than setting a direct target for the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, it now aims to reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20% by 2010 and to increase the share of renewable energy to some 10%, as well as to cover roughly 20% of the nation's land with forest. But it stressed that technology and costs are major barriers to achieving energy efficiency in China, and that it will be hard to alter the nation's dependency on coal in the short term. What China needs, said a government spokesman, is international cooperation in helping China move toward a low-carbon economy. Chinese industries have been hesitant to embrace unproven clean coal and carbon capture technologies that are still in their infancy in developed countries. If China has now passed the United States as the largest annual global warming polluter, it does nothing to absolve the United States of the moral and pragmatic responsibility to act swiftly and decisively to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions. We in the U.S. will still be the second largest global warming polluter in the world, not exactly a comfortable position; and we will long remain the largest single contributor to climate change, as cumulative greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, not annual emissions, and we will long remain the largest cumulative emitter. To me, China's now larger role in global CO2 emissions simply highlights the urgency of taking a leadership position in the United States - enacting real reforms to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and do our share to solve this global crisis - so that we may turn to addressing the global community, particularly China and India, in a global solution. Contrary to President Bush's usual line of argument, pointing at China's growing emissions does bot to absolve the United States of it's responsibility act to solve the climate crisis; rather it points to the urgent need to both enact smart domestic policies and lead a global response to this global crisis, and time is clearly running out. As James Hansen (among other reputable climate scientists) has repeatedly warned (see here for the latest example), the Earth stands perilously close to tipping points that could send the climate crisis spinning beyond our control. For now, for better or for worse, humans and their activities are solidly in the driver's seat of the global climate. But perhaps as little as 5 or 10 years of continued business-as-usual could push the climate crisis beyond our ability to change course - we'll be rudely kicked out of the driver's seat before we can turn this car around... [Image source: The Guardian. A hat tip to Alisha Fowler at Global Climate Change blog and to Humaira Falkenberg] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-On-China-China-Passes-United-States-as-Largest-Annual-Global-Warming-Polluter?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:20:25 -0400 China climate change coal Eye On China global warming http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Bush-Wants-More-Nuclear-Energy-to-Slow-Global-Warming?rsstype=group&gid=1 World leaders rejoiced at the G-8 summit earlier this month when President Bush finally discussed human-caused global warming and possible solutions. Now hes expounding on those solutions. He announced today that there can be no solution [to global warming] without nuclear power.” Specifically, he claimed that three new nuclear power plants are needed each year beginning in 2015 to keep up with demand. I didn't hear anything about energy efficiency being the first step to deal with demand. No new licenses have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 1973. The U.S. currently gets 20 percent of its power from 104 nuclear power plants. We're beginning to make some progress, Bush said. That's good news for the American consumer. He added that nuclear plants are a good fit because they dont release global warming emissions like coal plants. The U.S. isnt the only world power wanting to ramp up nuclear power, of course. Check out Wattheads piece on Chinas plan to increase nuclear power use 20-fold by 2030. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Bush-Wants-More-Nuclear-Energy-to-Slow-Global-Warming?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:01:13 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/So-The-US-Senate-Ignored-Me?rsstype=group&gid=1 Can you believe they didn't listen? Yeah, me either. In case you hadn't heard, the Senate passed their energy bill today, increasing CAFE standards, which will require automakers to field more efficient models of their cars and trucks. Of course, as I said before, the auto industry is already moving in this direction, and it will be interesting to see if the industry will have gotten ahead of the standards on their own. Perhaps not, and perhaps this aspect of the legislation is most important, but with strapped, knocked around, and discarded Chrysler clearly seeing their salvation in hybrid and other high-efficiency vehicles, it continues to look like the Feds are chasing after market trends, rather than boldly dictating a change. If this legislation had come at the height of SUV sales, if they had taken on Detroit when there were only a few hybrids on the roads, and no waiting lists, and no high speed electric vehicle start-ups, I would be more impressed. Is it a case of Chrysler chasing the Senate's action? I doubt it, only because Chrysler looks like the last to get on board with the alternative fuels/hybrid/high efficiency movement. As noted before, Toyota is well on its way to fielding nothing but hybrids, and the other two Detroit automakers have a robust offering of hybrids and dual-fuel vehicles. This legislation, if it survives committee and is signed into law by Bush, might force an acceleration of the current schedule of efficiency increases, but Detroit is just reliving the lessons it failed to learn in the 1970s, and Congress is playing the same game of catchup that it did back then. What the Senate failed to do today was apply extra tax to the oil companies, a move opposed by Republican lawmakers because they felt it would actually increase prices. Well no kidding. It's already beyond obvious that the oil companies have little to no incentive to play in the alternative energy game, and they've already gotten a bit petulant on the topic of refineries, which means all that money is going toward is hedging against the day when their oligopoly finally crumbles and they have to do something other than resell natural resources at a ridiculous markup. Massive run-on sentences aside, an opportunity has certainly been missed. That tax money would have gone toward funding alternative energy research and development, and now we're looking at no new tax incentives, grants, or other monies. Not that I expect that to derail what seems to be a snowballing movement away from fossil fules and toward renewables. It's just a bummer that Congress won't make Big Oil foot the bill. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/So-The-US-Senate-Ignored-Me?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:00:10 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Senate-Energy-Bill-Update-Coal-to-Liquids-Amendments-Go-Down-in-Flames?rsstype=group&gid=1 Senate rejects both Republican and Democrat-sponsored amendments to support the expanded use of coal-to-liquids synthetic fuel. As the Senate continues debate today on the comprehensive energy package today (see previous posts here and here), two controversial amendments that would have supported the expanded use of coal-to-liquids fuels were voted down by a hefty margin. The first proposal, submitted by Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered an coal industry-backed proposal that would create a national coal-to-liquid fuels standard that reaches 6 billion gallons by 2022. Aiming to quell debate about the environmental impacts of coal-to-liquids (CTL) fuel (see previous post), the Domenici/Bunning plan (Amendment 1628) would have required a 20% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional gasoline. The amendment died on a 39-55 vote with several moderate/greener Republicans joining every Senate Democrat in opposing the amendment. The proposal from the Democrat's side (Amendment 1614), porposed by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Jon Tester (D-MT), offered a $10 billion proposal to provide loans for carbon capture and storage equipment on coal-to-liquids plants. Eligible plants would have to capture and store at least 75% of their carbon dioxide emissions and produce fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are 20% lower than equivalent conventional fuels (synthetic diesel would be compared to diesel, synthetic gasoline to gasoline, etc. rather than the Republican proposal which would compare all CTL fuels to conventional gasoline). The bill would allow biomass to be blended with the coal to lower the lifecycle emissions of the fuel, making the target achievable, though not easy. The high environmental bar apparently frustrated the Republicans, who all voted against this amendment together with the greener Democrats. The end result of this afternoon's debate is that, at least for now, the Senate energy package will move forward without any support for controversial coal-to-liquids synthetic fuels. Future amendments may find a compromise position that sneaks support for CTL into the bill. (In fact, as I write this, I'm listening to Senator Baccus [D-MT] on C-Span discussing a package of financial incentives marked up by the Finance Committee that will likely be added to the bill and he's mentioned CTL several times. Not sure about the details of that amendment yet, but more to come. Support for CTL may be down, but not out...) [A hat tip to Joe Romm at Climate Progress] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Senate-Energy-Bill-Update-Coal-to-Liquids-Amendments-Go-Down-in-Flames?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:18:16 -0400 alternative fuels coal coal-to-liquids Energy policy federal policy climate change climate change policy global warming http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Warnings-From-A-Warming-World-Spring-Arriving-in-the-Arctic-Weeks-Early?rsstype=group&gid=1 A team of Danish researchers have documented spring's rapid advance in the Arctic: regional ecoystems, species strained to adapt, at risk of extinction [From BBC News:] Ice in north-east Greenland is melting an average of 14.6 days earlier than in the mid-1990s, bringing forward the date plants flower and birds lay eggs. The team warned that the observed changes could disrupt the region's ecosystems and food chain, affecting the long-term survival of some species. The findings have been published in the journal Current Biology. The scientists assessed how a range of species' behaviour was affected by the changing climate in Zackenberg, north-east Greenland, between 1996 and 2005. Observation of 21 species - six plants, 12 arthropods and three birds - revealed that the organisms had brought forward their flowering, emergence or egg-laying in line with the earlier ice melt. We were particularly surprised to see the trends were so strong when considering that the entire summer is very short in the High Arctic - just three or four months from snowmelt to freeze-up, said co-author Toke Hoye, from the University of Aarhus. The real deciding factor is that each individual time series has a very close correlation, so it is not just that the average trend is very similar but each species is closely coupled (to the ice melt). Winner and losers Dr Hoye suggested that the warming in the region, which was occurring at twice the rate of the global average, could affect the future stability of the region's ecosystem. There could be positive consequences in the short term, and potentially negative consequences in the long term. At first, this could be regarded as a positive result because it is extending the summer season, which is probably a factor in terms of organisms getting through their development. Over the long term, it is most likely to be the case that species from southern latitudes will be able to establish themselves (in the region) and increase competition for food. Dr Hoye acknowledged that the 10-year period could be considered by some people as not long enough to reach these conclusions. But he added the changes in behaviour had been observed in a large number of species, and that the findings were considered by independent reviewers who were satisfied by the consistency of the results. They had hoped for a longer time period, and we did too, he told BBC News. But until we have managed to gather another 10 years of data, it is relevant to make this point now. He added that the findings, described as the first of their kind for the High Arctic, extended the global picture of changing behaviour among organisms. In August, scientists from 17 nations examined 125,000 studies involving 561 species across Europe. The researchers found a shift in the continent's seasons, with spring arriving an average of six to eight days earlier than it did 30 years ago. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Warnings-From-A-Warming-World-Spring-Arriving-in-the-Arctic-Weeks-Early?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:30:35 -0400 climate change global warming Warnings From a Warming World http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-On-China-China-May-Ban-Ethanol-Production-From-Foodcrops-Halt-Coal-to-Liquids-Projects?rsstype=group&gid=1 Chinese officials indicate that China may turn away from corn-based ethanol and coal-to-liquids synthetic fuels over concerns about the sustainability of these alternative fuels China may halt the production of grain-based ethanol and coal-to-liquids synthetic fuels, a Chinese official told a seminar on China's fuel ethanol development held in Beijing last weekend. The official, a deputy director with China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the nation's top economic planning agency, told seminar attendees that the country no longer approve any ethanol projects designed to produce fuel from edible feedstocks, including corn. Xu Dingming, vice director of the Office of the National Energy Leading Group, echoed these comments saying, Food-based ethanol fuel will not be the direction for China. The Office of the National Energy Leading Group is responsible for energy planning and is an office of the NDRC. China may also put an end to projects which are designed to produce petroleum by liquefying coal, the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing the NDRC official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The State Council, China's cabinet, also recently approved, at least in principle, a 'long-term renewable energy development plan,' a Forbes.com article reports. The development plan calls for restrictions on developing the corn-based ethanol and coal-to-liquids fuels due to their environmental impact, the paper said. It was not immediately clear when the plan would be formally approved. China's rapidly increasing oil demand and lack of domestic oil resources has led the country to turn to alternative fuels, including corn ethanol and coal-to-liquids synthetic fuels. The Chinese government said earlier it would invest more in developing alternative energy resources including biomass fuel and liquefied coal to substitute petroleum during the 11th Five-Year Program (2006-2010) period, amid concerns over the country's growing dependence on petroleum, Xinhua reports. This apparent change of course, motivated by concerns about the environmental sustainability of these alternative fuels, may indicate a shift in thinking for the industrializing nation. The rapid development of grain-based ethanol biofuels has resulted in commodity price pressures in non-developed nations, the development report said. China's grain stores should be focused on feeding its 1.3 billion people and crop lands should be reserved for food production, not energy production, the report said. The renewable energy plan would restrict China's ethanol industry to producing fuel from non-grain sources, such as grasses, corn stalks or other plant by-products. The development plan also calls for China to restrict its fledgling coal-to-liquids industry due to the high capital investment needs and its high demand for water and energy during the production process. It seems that concerns about water and food shortages may be beginning to trump concerns about energy supplies as China's massive population and rapid economic growth strain available resources. China produced 1.54 million tons of ethanol in 2006, of which 850,000 tons were made from corn, Forbes reports. Ethanol production, which currently occurs at four large ethanol plants, consumed about two percent of Chinas total corn production in 2006. Coal liquidification, or coal-to-liquids technology, is a process which turns coal into liquid gasoline, diesel or other fuels (such as dimethyl ether). Coal-to-liquids fuel production produces large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions as well as sulphur dioxide, lead and mercury pollution. It also consumes large amounts of water to produce steam used in the liquedification process. If China is indeed moving away from corn-based ethanol and coal-to-liquids fuels, they may be wiser than us here in the United States. China's massive population and rapid economic development have put it between a rock and a hard place. The Chinese government wants to continue to grow the economy, but the country has come face to face with significant resource constraints - including water, food, energy and raw materials - as well as a rapidly deteriorating environment. These three pressures - economic development, resource constraints and environmental issues - are all significantly more intense in China than they are in the United States, leading the country to take seemingly more extreme and sometimes conflicting actions. Ultimately, I think that the realities of resource limitations and the dismal state of China's environment will mean that China will either find a path towards sustainable development, or the country will implode amidst water shortages, famine and riots over unlivable environmental conditions. And as usual, whichever scenario eventually plays itself out, China's course forward will have significant impacts on the rest of the world. This seemingly changing stance on corn-based ethanol and coal-to-liquids fuels is at least an encouraging indication that China is beginning to change its thinking and search for a sustainable way forward. [A hat tip to Green Car Congress here and here and Climate Progress. Image source: MDIdea.com] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-On-China-China-May-Ban-Ethanol-Production-From-Foodcrops-Halt-Coal-to-Liquids-Projects?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:38:14 -0400 alternative fuels biofuels China coal coal-to-liquids Energy policy ethanol Eye On China http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Warnings-From-A-Warming-World-Study-Finds-Global-Warming-Causing-Hundreds-of-Antarctic-Glaciers-to-Accelerate?rsstype=group&gid=1 Glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula are accelerating their flow into the sea, contributing to faster sea level rise; a separate UN report finds that the amount of snow and ice, especially in the Northern Hemisphere has dramatically decreased. [From Green Car Congress:] Hundreds of glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) are flowing faster, further adding to sea level rise according to new research published this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Global warming, which is already causing increased summer snow melt and ice shelf retreat of the Antarctic Peninsula, is the most likely cause. Using radar images acquired by European ERS-1 and -2 satellites, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) tracked the flow rate of more than 300 previously unstudied glaciers. They found a 12% increase in glacier speed from 1993 to 2003. These observations, echoing recent findings from coastal Greenland, indicate that the cause is the melting of the lower glaciers, which flow directly into the sea. As the lower glaciers thin, the buoyancy of the ice can lift the glaciers off their rock beds, allowing them to slide faster. We attribute this widespread acceleration trend not to meltwater-enhanced lubrication or increased snowfall, the report said, but rather to a dynamic response to frontal thinning. We estimate that as a result, the annual sea level contribution from this region has increased by 0.047 0.011 mm between 1993 and 2003. This contribution, together with previous studies that assessed increased runoff from the area and acceleration of glaciers resulting from the removal of ice shelves, implies a combined AP contribution of 0.16 0.06 mm yr-1. This is comparable to the contribution from Alaskan glaciers, and combined with estimated mass loss from West Antarctica, is probably large enough to outweigh mass gains in East Antarctica and to make the total Antarctic sea level contribution positive.In February this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that they could not provide an upper limit on the rate of sea-level rise from Antarctica in coming centuries because of a lack of understanding of the behavior of the large ice sheets. These new results give scientists a clearer picture about the way that climate warming can affect glaciers both in the Arctic and Antarctic. Furthermore, they pave the way for more reliable projections of future sea level rise, and provide a better basis for policy decisions. Dr Hamish Pritchard, Lead Author:The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3 C over the last half-century. Eighty-seven percent of its glaciers have been retreating during this period and now we see these glaciers are also speeding up. It's important that we use tools such as satellite technology that allow us to monitor changes in remote and inaccessible glaciers on a regional scale. Understanding what's happening now gives us our best chance of predicting what's likely to happen in the future. UN Report Finds Snow and Ice Substantially Decreasing Separately, the UN Environment Program released a comprehensive new report The Global Outlook for Ice and Snow showing that the amount of ice and snow, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, has decreased substantially over the last few decades, mainly due to human-made global warming. The declines in snow cover, sea ice, glaciers, permafrost and lake ice will affect hundreds of millions of people, according to the report, with impacts including significant changes in the availability of water supplies for drinking and agriculture, rising sea levels affecting low lying coasts and islands and an increase in hazards such as subsidence of currently frozen land. The report covers all parts of the cryosphere (the world of ice): snow, land ice, sea ice, river and lake ice, and frozen ground. More than 70 scientists from around the world contributed to The Global Outlook for Ice and Snow, which was compiled in part to support the International Polar Year (IPY) running from 2007 to 2008. The peer-reviewed report builds on and in some areas extends the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose fourth assessment reports were issued between February and May this year. The report also flags up areas in need of further scientific clarity which the IPY, a major international science initiative of the World Meteorological Organization and the International Council for Science of which UNEP is a partner, aims to resolve. These include the likely fate of the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets where 98 to 99% of the world's freshwater ice on the Earth's surface is held. Even just a 20% melting of Greenland and a 5% melting of Antarctica would result in a four to five meter sea level rise. Resources: Widespread acceleration of tidewater glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula H. D. Pritchard and D. G. Vaughan; Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, F03S29, doi:10.1029/2006JF000597, 2007 The Global Outlook for Ice and Snow, UN Environment Program report http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Warnings-From-A-Warming-World-Study-Finds-Global-Warming-Causing-Hundreds-of-Antarctic-Glaciers-to-Accelerate?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:47:27 -0400 climate change global warming Warnings From a Warming World http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Political-Posturing?rsstype=group&gid=1 So when is the federal government going to get its act together? Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all have renewable energy goals, for crying out loud, yet the feds continue to drag their feet and refuse to make any substantive policy changes, even though the Democrats were elected to Congress on the promise of sweeping change and positive action, they've yet to deliver on the subject of energy and climate. Supposedly that's all going to change soon, according to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Opening debate on sweeping legislation, Reid offered criticism of the current administration's policies and promised hope for the future, for energy independence and greatly reduced emissions in the proposed bill. The throny issue is going to be CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, and that's the one that gets most people's attention. For some reason, home electricity bills just don't get quite the attention that gas prices do. It's probably all the neon signs. At any rate, CAFE standards are in some ways a symbol of a whole thicket of issues: climate change, energy independence, energy efficiency, and alternative energy. Despite impressive advances in technology, the standards have not been raised in the past 30 years, in some ways ushering in the SUV explosion of the past fifteen years and helping bring these questions to a crisis point, as well as giving the environmentalist movement a handy symbol of all that's wrong with energy consumption these days. A rise in CAFE standards would be both a concrete step forward as well as a symbolic advance for the rest of the cause. But while those standards might force Detroit automakers to creak forward, the upgraded standards might be irrelevant by the time they're in force. Toyota just topped 1 million worldwide sales for hybrid vehicles since the first Prius was launched in Japan in 1997, and according to the linked article, they soon hope to move 1 million units per year. And if Tesla Motors' claims prove accurate, a comparably performing electric car could be a reality far sooner than most had anticipated, hitting the road as soon as next year. Which brings us back to Sen. Reid's energy bill. CAFE standards are all well and good, but it's quite possible that gas prices and a consumer appetite for hybrid, alternative energy, and electric vehicles could make them moot by the time they're in effect. Much more crucial will be the promotion of increased electric infrastructure; gasoline, it is being proven, can be done away with. Electricity, to power our homes and businesses and maybe our cars, will always be a necessity and it is well past time to see a comprehensive plan for clean and renewable generation of same. Any energy bill that does not exhaustively address that issue falls well short of what must be done. Let's hope the Presidential candidates can add some spark to this debate. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Political-Posturing?rsstype=group&gid=1 Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:11:20 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Leapfrogging-to-Cleantech?rsstype=group&gid=1 It's one thing to get an industrialized nation to go green. Sure, it's a tough, uphill climb, but things will eventually even out. If Moore's Law, currently applied to computer processor power and cost, could be applied to photovoltaic solar panels, the West would literally be facing the possibility of electricity too cheap to meter in the next decade or so. Sure, that's a dream at the moment, but with the current intensity of interest and vast amounts of money being poured into the effort, it's only a matter of time before some progress is made. And once you get that snowballing of technological progress, adoption becomes a no-brainer for industrialized nations. Can you imagine a business these days working without e-mail, or a website, or at least a computer to keep track of the books? They're still out there, of course, but have become a dying breed. In a decade or two, the pressures of climate change aside, it's almost certain that the business of energy will be addressed in ways just as revolutionary. So, it's almost a guarantee that the industrialized world will take care of itself, especially once the cost of going with cleantech begins too look more favorable--either through the lowering of prices for the new technology or the rise of energy prices to fuel the old. But what about industrializing and third world nations? The truth is, the first world could mop up their entire operations in surprisingly few years (fewer, likely, and at a lower cost than they'd like to admit), and the global picture could get no better because outside of Europe, North America, and East Asia, everyone would go scrambling for the fossil fuels and cheap, dirty technology to power their own ambitions and burgeoning consumer culture. There's no actual solution to this potential problem--the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire soon, did not make stringent demands of industrializing nations like China and India so as not to handicap their growing economies. Elsewhere in the blog, watthead points out the aims of China and India to clean up their respective acts, and that's well and good. But as encouraging as that is, eyes need to look next at Africa, South America, and the rest of Southeast Asia, and this is where the important work ought to be done. In 2003 then-UN Secretary General Kofi Anan suggested a similar strategy with the distribution of information technology, proposing an immediate jump to wireless networking technology over a more traditional fiber-optic grid. If a similar move were to be made, presenting distributed energy generation strategies, electric and alternative fuels vehicles, and so forth, the industrialized nations could help the third world lift itself out of poverty and ensure that it happened without adding to the emissions they were working so hard to decrease. After all, it should not need to be pointed out that any global climate change impact is not restricted by national or even continental borders. If cleantech is the answer to global climate change, then the answer needs to be applied as broadly as possible, not just within national boundaries in the pursuit of an arbitrary degree of reduction. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Leapfrogging-to-Cleantech?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:04:16 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Senator-Obama-Yields-to-Grassroots-Pressure-Says-No-to-Dirty-Coal-to-Liquids-Fuel?rsstype=group&gid=1 Apparently yielding to consistent grassroots pressure chastising Barack Obama for his long-held support for coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology as a way to reduce American oil dependence, the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate issued a statement today backing off of his support for coal-to-liquids synthetic fuels. Environmentalists and progressive groups have been hitting Senator Obama with petitions and letters recently, arguing that coal would produce a dirty alternative fuel and exacerbate global warming pollution at a time when we cannot afford to adopt a more carbon-intensive replacement for gasoline. Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for CTL synthetic fuels are up to twice as high as gasoline if emissions at CTL plants are not captured and sequestered. Even if carbon capture and storage technology is utilized at a CTL plant, the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of CTL synthetic fuels range from only moderately better to slightly worse than gasoline. In response to criticism of his support for CTL fuels, the LA Times reports that Senator Obama quietly issued a statement to the heads of several environmental groups today saying: Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy, the email said. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels. [emph. added] At issue is legislation, introduced in January by Senator Obama and Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY), that would give the coal industry tax breaks and other incentives to harness the abundant but environmentally damaging natural resource as an alternative fuel. Obama and Bunning have been leading a bipartisan group of senators who have promoted CTL as a way to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. The LA Times reports that Obama's aides described the statement as a clarification, distributed to correct what they said were false media reports describing the senator's views on the issue. However, that attempt to spin Senator Obama's new position on CTL contradicts the fact that, unlike other CTL legislation introduced on the House side, Obama's CTL bill does not require CTL plants to sequester emissions or have a lower lifecycle emissions intensity than gasoline to receive federal incentives. Obama's Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 does provide incentives for plants to utilize carbon capture and sequestration, but does not require it, and the bill would extend loan guarantees for construction and direct loans for the planning and permitting of CTL plants as well as offer investment tax credits and fuel excise tax exemptions for CTL, regardless of the lifecycle greenhouse emissions of the CTL process being utilized. Since producing CTL fuel without sequestering plant emissions is considerably cheaper than the alternative, it is highly unlikely that the bulk of CTL plants supported by Obama and Bunning's proposed legislation would end up utilizing carbon capture and storage. The result would be the expanded use of an alternative fuel with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions roughly twice as bad as gasoline. Not exactly the kind of green bona fides you would expect from a senator and presidential candidate who has been highlighting his 'strong' position on climate change, a point grassroots activists, environmentalists, progressives [and this blogger] latched on to in letters and petitions questioning Senator Obama about his support for CTL. Other environmentalists point to the destructive impact of coal mining, including the strip mining and mountain-top removal widely practiced in the United States, as reason to oppose expanded use of coal for fuel, regardless of it's impact on climate change. Obama's recent statement has sparked confusion among coal industry officials, who until Tuesday had viewed Obama as an ally on the issue, and drew cheers from environmentalists, who described it as a good step forward. What we're seeing, particularly with Obama's statement, is that there's a race to the top among the Democratic candidates for the strongest position on how to solve the climate crisis, said Ilyse Hogue, campaign director for the progressive advocacy and active 'netroots' group, MoveOn.org, which was one of several groups waging a petition drive opposing the coal legislation. If Obama in fact goes along with the position he articulated, then that puts him ahead of where he was, she said. To us, the coal issue is a real test about whether the presidential candidates are serious about addressing the climate crisis or whether they're playing politics with the future of the planet, said Ted Glick, coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, an advocacy group that this week began distributing a petition criticizing Obama's support for the coal industry plan. You claim to be a different kind of politician and yet you push legislation that does not have America's best interest at heart, the petition says. This is a great step forward for Senator Obama, and more evidence that the right combination of grassroots pressure, online petitioning and letter writing, and hard work on the ground can work to shift candidates' and legislators' positions on climate change issues. There is clearly a lot of work left to be done, and its only going to be more and more important for those of us expecting strong leadership on climate change from the 2008 presidential candidates to keep up the pressure as the election progresses, particularly during the primaries. The primaries are the period of time when Democratic candidates will be most receptive to pressure on climate change as they will be looking to shore up support amongst progressive and environmental voter bases. Once the general election starts, the Dems will be more likely to focus on shoring up support amongst more moderate, conservative and independence demographics - it's the old 'run left/right during the primary and back to the center during the general' routine that characterizes American elections. (I guess this is one upside to the ridiculously long primary campaign season this election!) As far as Senator Obama's position on climate change goes, it seems obvious to me, but bares stating that just because Obama is apparently no longer supportive of coal-to-liquids unless it is at least 20% better on a GHG-intensity basis than gasoline doesn't mean he is fully committed to the kind of comprehensive action to tackle climate change we're going to need from our next president. This is a step in the right direction for Obama, but we're going to need to keep the pressure on him and make it clear that this isn't enough. Obama has still yet to distinguish himself with a very comprehensive or innovative energy and climate change strategy and his policy proposals on his websites' energy and climate page displays the kind of incremental, 'inside-the-box' thinking that doesn't inspire much confidence in me at this point. And while he has now committed to supporting the Boxer/Sanders-bill calling for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, he originally only supported the much weaker (and insufficient) McCain-Lieberman bill and didn't sign on to the Boxer/Sanders bill until four months after the bill was introduced and 11 other senators had already co-sponsored it. (The same can be said for Senator Clinton as well; John Edwards was the first major candidate to support the 80% by 2050 goals). And at a fundraising luncheon in Silicon Valley in March, Obama told attendees that his support for the Boxer/Sanders bill was largely symbolic since it probably wouldn't pass! (See this post for the details) The question really is this: is Obama - or any other candidate for that matter - exhibiting leadership on climate change, or followership? Is he proactively leading our country to solving the climate crisis, or is he simply responding to grassroots pressure from folks like us who he knows are going to be a key part of his primary election voter base? What we need is a strong leader, someone committed to making a bold and aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goal the centerpiece of his or her campaign and presidency. The next president of the United States will not only have to deal with undoing eight years of heel-dragging and back-sliding during the Bush Administration, but will also have to lead our nation and the world to tackling climate change, a monumental task requiring a true leader. If, by the end of the next president's term in 2012, the United States doesn't have a comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction plan well in place and we aren't leading an international response to the climate crisis with buy-in from developing countries like China, India and Brazil, we're basically sunk - we'll be too late to adequately respond to climate change and we'll be faced with adapting to a drastically different - and harsher - world. That's why this election should be SO important to anyone concerned about climate change and the fate of the planet. We need to take a close look at both the leadership skills each candidate has exhibited as well as the specific policies they have proposed. Look past the 60-second sound bites and stump speeches and really take a look a their voting record and issues page on the websites. Steve Kirsch has done some pretty detailed delving into the positions of the three major democratic candidates - Obama, Clinton and Edwards - and what he finds may be interesting to you. Climate change should be THE issue of the 2008 elections and deserves your attention. Put each candidate to the test and see if they're up to leading this country and the world to quickly and boldly solve the climate crisis. And in the meantime, we should keep up the pressure on Obama and the other candidates and hopefully help transform each of the candidates into champions of climate solutions. Clearly we're making progress, and wherever a candidate is, they can certainly afford to be pushed further to take bold action on climate change! [A hat tip to Jaime at Its Getting Hot In Here] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Senator-Obama-Yields-to-Grassroots-Pressure-Says-No-to-Dirty-Coal-to-Liquids-Fuel?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:22:55 -0400 http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Low-gas-prices-or-the-environment-choose-one?rsstype=group&gid=1 The days get longer. Trees grow heavy with leaves. And politicians yammer about high gas prices. Ah, it must be silly season again. The goofiness of legislative proposals to lower gas prices is such that normally staid environmental economists foam at the mouth whenever this topic comes up. In an effort keep my own mouth-foaming at a minimum, I'll present a simple bulleted list of non-controversial (to me) propositions: Gas prices should be higher, not lower. No one is gouging consumers. The problem is oil consumption, not oil companies. This is pretty simple. You can't simultaneously fight for low gas prices and fight climate change. These are opposing policy objectives. The whole idea behind the various climate change bills presently haunting the halls of congress is to raise the price of energy consumption. Although none of these bills propose a direct tax on gasoline, all of them will lead to an increase in downstream costs for consumers. As they should. I missed the recent Democratic presidential debate, but apparently Wolf at one point asked the candidates what was to be done about high gas prices. As ever, it fell to a non-contender to provide an honest answer. Mike Gravel came out and said: nothing. High gas prices are a good thing. Contrast this with John Edwards' Plan to Relieve Families from Rising Gas Prices, a strange mash of policy proposals couched in a healthy dose of demagoguery. To be fair, elements of this plan are sensible -- but only because they have nothing to do with high gas prices. In fact, many of the elements of the plan will raise gas prices. The only credible way that the government can lower gas prices is by raising fuel economy standards for cars. Mandated efficiency measures will reduce demand for gas, and then the market will do its thing. Of course, the market should eventually do its thing even in the absence of government mandates. Given enough time, Americans will switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles. But only if gas prices remain...wait for it...high. OK, I think I'm foaming a bit now, so time to wind down. I recognize that high gas prices cause economic pain for many Americans. I also recognize that oil companies make boatloads of money, receive lots of unnecessary government support, and are just generally unlikeable. But none of these facts are the basis for a sound energy policy. Gas prices are high because people really want to consume gas, and any solutions to our energy and environmental problems have to address -- and change -- that fundamental reality. Lowering gas prices is a step backwards. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Low-gas-prices-or-the-environment-choose-one?rsstype=group&gid=1 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:12:24 -0400 Gas prices Carbon tax http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/G8-Global-Warming-Talks-a-SuccessSort-of?rsstype=group&gid=1 Late last week, leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations agreed to seriously consider cutting emissions 50 percent by the year 2050. They also affirmed the importance of developing nations to cut missions and plan to develop a global framework on emissions by the end of 2008. This outcome is a far cry from German Chancellor Angela Merkel's initial plan to get the G8 to limit global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) and to cut emissions 50 percent by 2050. In an interview before the G8 meetings, she had told the German Magazine Der Spiegel that her 3.6 degree proposal was ?non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.? But Bush Administration officials flat-out rejected mandatory emissions targets. So is it a success that world leaders have agreed to seriously consider cutting emissions? Depends who you ask. British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the agreement a major, major step forward. Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said it was a very positive outcome. Even Chancellor Merkel said she was very satisfied with the meetings. But others were less than satisfied. The Taipei Times reported that Daniel Mittler, climate policy advisor of Greenpeace International, called the deal clearly not enough to prevent dangerous climate change. The U.S. isolation in refusing to accept binding emission cuts has become blindingly obvious at this meeting. Likewise, Philip Clapp of the U.S. National Environmental Trust said that although Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Blair were portraying the agreement positively, President Bush didn't give them an inch. The best they could get from him was a statement that their 50 percent-by-2050 emissions reduction proposal would be seriously considered. That's a pretty tiny landmark. At any rate, world leaders seemed very excited that the U.S. was willing to even talk seriously about climate change and that it had abandoned its previous positions that global warming was a myth or that human were not causing it. The Financial Times editorialized that although the G8 should still be skeptical of President Bush, his engagement is finally reflecting a change in Americans' stance on the issue. I wonder if it would not have been better for the other G8 nations to move forward and commit to Chancellor Merkel's targets without U.S. support. Did they cater to the lowest common denominator? Or was this a wise decision to continue talks and planning, given China and India's additional aversion to mandatory cuts? http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/G8-Global-Warming-Talks-a-SuccessSort-of?rsstype=group&gid=1 Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:22:52 -0400 G8 global warming climate change emissions http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Sweden-Targets-30-Cut-in-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-by-2020?rsstype=group&gid=1 Scandinavian country sets strong targets exceeding EU goal Sweden is targeting at least a 30% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, beating the European Union goal of a 20% reduction (see previous post), according to Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren. Carlgren told the Swedish newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, that since Sweden had pushed hard in the recent EU negotiations on the reduction target, that it would be unacceptable for the country to accept a lower goal. Sweden has already cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 7% from 1990 levels in it's efforts to meet Kyoto Protocol targets. The country's willingness to self-impose even more aggressive emissions reductions targets than those discussed by the EU contrasts with the positions of China (see previous post), India (see previous post) and the United States (see here) who remain opposed to mandatory reduction targets. Sweden has previously pledged to try to eliminate all fossil fuel use by 2020 (see previous post), although the likelihood of accomplishing that goal is uncertain. [A hat tip to Green Car Congress] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Sweden-Targets-30-Cut-in-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-by-2020?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:47:57 -0400 climate change climate change policy Energy policy global warming Sweden http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-on-India-India-Says-Existing-Efforts-Will-Cut-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-More-tha?rsstype=group&gid=1 Country says existing energy plan will reduce emissions, but warns that mandatory targets would curb economic growth India s Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Prodipto Ghosh, said that the country s existing energy policy would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 25% by 2020, Reuters reports. However, Ghosh also warned that pressure to set mandatory targets to curb global warming would hurt the developing nation's economic growth. India currently produces about 3% of total global anthropogenic carbon emissions, Reuters reports. Despite pressure from industrialized nations and environmental groups to cut emissions, India is not currently required under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions - estimated to be rising by 2-3 percent annually. Prodipto Ghosh, India's environment secretary, told a news conference that India was an environmentally responsible country which actively enforced programs on energy efficiency and promotion of renewable energy, which were paying off. India is currently spending 2.17% of GDP annually on addressing climate change, Ghosh said, through projects in agriculture, coastal zones and health and sanitation. Ghosh put the blame for global warming on industrialized nations, arguing that they have a responsibility to set higher cuts in emissions targets for themselves, rather than pressuring developing countries. This stance is unchanged from past negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol echoes China's recent statements regarding mandatory emissions targets (see previous post). The world's richest countries, including the United States, contributed about 60 percent of total emissions in 2004 and account for over three quarters of cumulative emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, Reuters reports. Developing countries like India have not historically, are not now and will not in the foreseeable future be a significant contributor to emissions, said Ghosh. Any legally mandated measures for reducing emissions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on GDP growth and this will have serious implications for poverty alleviation efforts. He urged the West to do more to help developing countries adapt to the impact of climate change. Climate change impacts will largely affect the poor and their livelihoods and lives will be at risk, he said. Experts say the Indian subcontinent will be one of the most affected regions in the world, with more frequent natural disasters of greater severity, more diseases such as malaria and greater hunger. While developed nations are responsible for the large majority of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, poor and developing nations are likely to feel the brunt of the effects of global warming, the IPCC and other experts predict (see previous post). It is unclear whether or not this 25% reduction is relative to current emissions levels or to a projected business-as-usual (BAU) emissions level in 2020. My guess, considering how rapidly India is growing (and wants to grow), it is relative to a BAU estimate. This compares to Sweden's plans to cut emissions 30% below current levels (or maybe below 1990 levels; their plans aren't clear either - see other post). [A hat tip to Green Car Congress. Image credit: GlobalEye.org.uk] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-on-India-India-Says-Existing-Efforts-Will-Cut-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-More-tha?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:46:37 -0400 climate change climate change policy Energy policy Eye On India global warming India http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-on-China-China-Unveils-Global-Warming-Plan?rsstype=group&gid=1 Country vows to 'blaze new path to industrialization' through green energy investments but does not commit to greenhouse gas emissions targets; follows announcement of plans to increase nuclear power use 20-fold by 2030 According to the Guardian (UK), China unveiled its first national plan to address climate change on Monday, vowing to blaze a new path to industrialization. Despite a commitment to meeting a larger share of China's rapidly growing energy needs with more green power - wind, solar and hydropower - and increase energy efficiency and reforestation efforts, the world's second largest and fastest growing emitter of greenhouse gases refused to accept binding emissions reduction targets. The announcement of the 62-page action plan appeared aimed at deflecting criticism of China's growing emissions ahead of the G8+6 summit of major industrial nations held in Germany this week. Climate change and the future of international agreements aimed at addressing the challenge after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 will be a major theme of the G8 summit. In addition to increased energy efficiency, renewable energy and reforestation efforts, the report, initially due out in April, pledged more research into energy-saving technology, improvements in water resource management, and public education campaigns to raise awareness of the issue. On the contentious issue of greenhouse gas emissions, the plan promised significant achievements but made no commitment to a quantifiable goal, the Guardian reports. We must reconcile the need for development with the need for environmental protection, Ma Kai, the head of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters. In its course of modernisation, China will not tread the traditional path of industrialisation, featuring high consumption and high emissions. In fact, we want to blaze a new path to industrialisation. As the Guardian points out, and I have discussed at much length in past posts (see previous 'Eye on China' series posts), if China realizes this goal, it would represent a remarkable turnaround for the rapidly industrializing country. China's double-digit growth spurt has come at a huge environmental cost: most of the country's rivers are now dangerously polluted and many are overdrawn for irrigation; the air quality in dozens of major cities is consistently hazardous to human health; and industry is currently so inefficient that China uses seven times as much energy as Japan for each dollar of GDP. The country's rapid growth and reliance on coal for 70% of its energy needs have it on track to overtake the US as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, possibly as early as this year (see previous post). The report admitted that reliance on coal will not change substantially for a long-term period in the future despite efforts to enhance renewable energy, build nuclear plants (see more below) and speed up utilization of coal bed methane. Still, despite China's rapidly growing emissions, the carbon footprint of the average Chinese citizen is less than a fifth of that of an American, the Guardian reports, and just over a third of a European's. China has repeatedly argued that it had a right to continued economic development in order to improve the standards of living of its billion plus citizens and has consistently resisted binding emissions reductions targets in international negotiations. Nevertheless, China has come under increasing pressure to act to address climate change and it's now significant contribution to the problem, particularly given the huge economic advances it has made since 1997 when Beijing argued during Kyoto treaty talks that developing countries should be exempt from mandatory cuts because they needed room to grow and that developed nations were to blame for historic contributions to global warming. Mr Ma repeated this line on Monday, saying wealthy nations must take more responsibility because they had been pumping industrial gases into the atmosphere for 200 years. He rejected an EU proposal - expected to be debated at a special session of the G8 summit - for the extent of global warming to be limited to a rise of 2C by 2050. I fear this lacks a scientific basis, Mr Ma said, despite the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recently released Fourth Assessment Report clearly supports the EU position (see previous post). Mr Ma gave qualified support to George Bush's proposals last week for a voluntary pact among the planet's biggest emitters, saying it was a positive change . Thankfully though, Mr Ma remarked that Bush's proposal should not displace the main UN treaty on global warming, the Kyoto protocol. As the Guardian notes, most of China's climate change plan restates existing goals, including a 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2010 and more than doubling the use of renewable energy by 2020 (see previous posts here and here). Still, this is the first time these various efforts have been presented in a more comprehensive action plan to address climate change. Both the UN and Greenpeace welcomed it as a step forward. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme, said: We cannot ask for more at this stage. He said China and other developing nations should focus on building greener energy sources such as methane power plants. The infrastructure now being built will serve for the next 30 to 50 years, he said. Yang Ailun, Greenpeace China's climate change campaigner, said: This is a first. It shows China has done its homework about what needs to be done. Even though the plan is mostly a compilation of existing policies, that shouldn't detract from its significance or the current level of effort. China Plans to Increase Nuclear Power Use 20-fold by End of 2030 The Chinese government plans to boost the country?s nuclear power generation capability by between 15 and 20 times its current level by the end of 2030, according to a speech made last week by a Chinese official close to the plan. Currently, China has 10 nuclear reactors, which are capable of generating 8 gigawatts (GW, 1 GW = 1,000 megawatts). The National Development and Reform Commission, which administers China?s energy policy, plans to increase nuclear power generation to between 1200 GW and 160 GW, according to the official. China has previously announced that it wanted to up nuclear power output to 40 GW by the end of 2020, Green Car Congress reports. To attain its goal under the new plan, China would need to build in excess of 100 nuclear reactors, each capable of generating 1 GW, over the next 20 years. If the plan is realized, China would become the world?s largest generator of nuclear power, surpassing Japan, France and the United States. Increasing the nation's reliance on nuclear power would likely offset the use of coal-fired power plants, decreasing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Such large-scale use of nuclear power would carry with it waste disposal and security issues however, and it remains to be seen how China will deal with these problems on this large scale. [Image source: NaturalHistoryMag.com] http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Eye-on-China-China-Unveils-Global-Warming-Plan?rsstype=group&gid=1 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:43:50 -0400 China climate change climate change policy Eye On China global warming http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Our-Coal-Fired-Future?rsstype=group&gid=1 Introduction I have stated on several occasions that I believe global warming is a greater immediate threat than Peak Oil. As long as the demand is there, energy companies will strive to supply fuel to the marketplace. To meet the demand, we will develop tar sands, while consuming enormous quantities of natural gas. We will turn natural gas (or even coal) indirectly (and inefficiently) into corn ethanol. Finally, we will turn vast quantities of carbon into fuel via what I term XTL technologies. XTL technologies consist of a partial oxidation (POX) reaction followed by the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction. When the POX feedstock is natural gas, this is referred to as a gas-to-liquids (GTL) process. If the feedstock is coal or biomass, this is referred to as CTL, or BTL respectively. I won't go into a detailed explanation of the POX and FT reactions. What I will give is a quick, layman?s overview. When a hydrocarbon material is burned (e.g. natural gas, coal, biomass, etc.), it can be completely oxidized (combusted) to carbon dioxide and water, or it can be partially oxidized to carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The latter POX reaction is accomplished by restricting the amount of oxygen during the combustion, and it is a potentially deadly reaction should it inadvertently occur inside your home. The resulting mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is called synthesis gas (syngas) and can be used in the manufacture of an abundance of organic compounds. The FT reaction is a bit more complex than the POX reaction. You can find in-depth information on the FT reaction here. In short, the FT reaction converts syngas generated via the POX reaction into a distribution of long-chain hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel range are very common, making this reaction an ideal way to extend the fossil fuel economy. The Promise At present, the economics for GTL are far more favorable than for CTL or BTL. There are enormous reserves of natural gas throughout the world. Worldwide reserves of natural gas are estimated to be 6,200 trillion cubic feet, of which 3,000 trillion cubic feet are estimated to be stranded. (Reserves are considered to be stranded if it is uneconomical or impractical to get them to market.) This is enough stranded natural gas to produce 300 billion barrels of fuel, according to Syntroleum (Warning: It's a 3.4 meg PDF). GTL is not a pipe dream. The process is technically viable, having been demonstrated on numerous occasions. It is economically viable depending on the price spread between natural gas and oil. Despite the fact that the capital costs for GTL plants are approximately twice those of conventional oil refineries, a number of projects have been announced in Qatar. Plants are being built, and the fuel produced will help supply some of the shortfall that Peak Oil will generate. The Peril Of course there is a catch. GTL is not all that efficient. There are efficiency losses during both the POX and the FT processes. It would be far more efficient to run automobiles directly on the natural gas. Due to the fact that the gas is stranded, this is obviously not an option. But the efficiency losses are significant. According to the Syntroleum link, it takes 10,000 cubic feet of gas to make 1 barrel of fuel. 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas contain roughly 10 million BTUs, but a barrel of fuel contains only around 5.5-6 million BTUs. Forty percent of the BTUs are either lost as radiant heat, or turned to steam and consumed in the GTL plant. Unless carbon sequestration is in place (unlikely), all of those BTUs ended up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On top of that, the BTUs from the barrel of fuel are going to end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere once the fuel is burned in an engine. The reason I find this more worrisome than Peak Oil is that I believe this path is inevitable, yet the consequences are unpredictable. We will make and use GTL fuel, as inefficient as it may be. Our carbon dioxide emissions are likely to accelerate in our quest to maintain affordable energy. As stranded gas supplies are consumed and GTL production peaks, there is CTL, with the same efficiency problems, waiting in the wings. From my view, the fossil fuel economy will be with us for a long time to come. Look at the figure below, and think of the experiment we are conducting. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at their highest levels in human history. The trend in the graph shows a linear increase in atmospheric levels. The trend didn't deviate at all during the oil shocks of the 70's. Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration I believe I can see the foresee the consequences of Peak Oil. It certainly won't be a picnic. But I think I can plan for it, and I believe that we will eventually adjust to a post-oil world. But I can't foresee the consequences of warming the earth up by 5 or 10 degrees C. Humanity has never had to deal with this problem. The Sahara Desert was once lush with vegetation and teemed with wildlife. Consider the impact if this is the fate of the Corn Belt of the Midwest. Yet I see nothing to indicate that we are going to veer from the course we have set. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Our-Coal-Fired-Future?rsstype=group&gid=1 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:27:47 -0400 BTL CTL global warming GTL climate change http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Hard-Versus-Soft-Action-In-Global-Climate-Change?rsstype=group&gid=1 As any market grows, investors will tell you, from the first hardy entrepeneurial pioneers into wide acceptance and wider investment, so grows the probability of fraudulent or negligible entries into the market.? The Dotcom boom could be a textbook example, where only a fraction of the companies offering IPOs at the height of investment are still in business today.? Today, however, a new sort of market is emerging that is going to offer returns on investment, not of dollars but of peace-of-mind.? Companies that sell carbon offsets are on the rise, but does that mean that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere slowing??? Probably not, at this point.? For now, the offset companies that are in business are catering to the moneyed elite, offering a salve to consciences for things like flying around in one's private jet, driving that gas-guzzling Hummer, or air-conditioning all 12,000 square feet of your mansion when you're out flying in the jet or driving the Hummer.? But with the high profile given global climate change recently--especially with the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth--the concept is beginning to spread to the masses. Richard Conniff, speaking on American Public Media's Marketplace radio broadcast, suggests you should be wary, however.? This market in particular, as is unfortunately often the case with charitable giving, is ripe for voodoo economics, as Conniff says.? And it's not hard to see why.? The average consumer does not do much, if any research into their spending or giving, which offers fertile ground for those running scams.? But further, as Conniff points out, there is no guarantee even from the most virtuous carbon offset sellers, that the tree you buy will offset its share of your carbon for the promised lifespan. No, indeed, better to spend that money on hard offsets--such as more efficient use of energy, or alternative methods of generation--which one can be sure of the lasting effects of.? In agreement with Conniff is Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn), who looks brightly toward a future of innovation and ingenuity to break us out of the current carbon cycle.? And here we've discussed a number of option in the past, from solar to wind, LED lighting to air conditioning compressor management. Or you could just buy the company promising to open 11 new coal burning plants and shelve the plans. But however it is done, it seems a much wiser investment for a company to purchase actual infrastructure--or buy their own land and plant and maintain their own trees--rather than hand off the responsibility to another company. http://www.greenedia.com/groups/greenedia-climate-change/blog/2007/06/Hard-Versus-Soft-Action-In-Global-Climate-Change?rsstype=group&gid=1 Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:10:27 -0400