Climate Change

In December of this year, formal negotiations will begin on a successor to the Kyoto Protocols which expire in 2012.  Right now in Vienna, parties are meeting to help prepare for what should be Homeric efforts over the course of the next two or three years.  See this from Reuters and for much more comprehensive coverage, including webcasts, go to the website of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  According to the conference press release, “one thousand representatives from more than 150 governments, business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions” are gathered in Vienna. 

If you are at all a little new to the subject of climate change, then the UNFCCC website is an excellent place to get essential background.  Also, just launched this month, there’s a new gateway “that highlights the wide-ranging work of the various parts of the United Nations system on climate change.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be holding high-level talks on climate change at the UN in New York in late September.  (I hope to be there to bring you a little first-hand look at things.)  President Bush has also invited representatives from around the world to talks right after the New York meetings.  See this from the White House and this from Reuters, courtesy of “Scientific American.”

Of course, so much of what happens in all of this will depend on who the next American president will be.  (See my post on this, Presidential Candidates, from April.)  In Congress, climate change legislation will be advanced this coming fall, but it is unlikely, in my opinion, that anything particularly useful for the long term will be put forward.  If it is, it will likely be vetoed.  At two different carbon finance conferences I attended this spring, nearly all the worthies polled said we were going to see national GHG reduction legislation but it would not be enacted until 2009.

The near-term story is going to be the shape of the energy legislation that has been passed out of both houses of Congress but needs to be reconciled in conference this fall and then needs to be passed into law.  Will Bush veto anything that rescinds multibillion dollar tax breaks for the oil and gas industry?  Will the draft legislation that comes out of the conference have significantly improved CAFE standards for motor vehicles and a renewable portfolio standard.  (I wrote extensively on this earlier in the summer.  See these posts for background.)

Meanwhile, there was a terrific op-ed in the “Financial Times” last week from Dr. Mario Molina, one of the Nobelists whose work on stratospheric ozone depletion was critical not only to reducing the terrifying specter of our destroying the vital protection of the ozone layer but, it turns out, to greatly delaying the worst effects of global warming.  (I wrote about “The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate” in March.)  Dr. Molina writes:  “The ozone treaty has already done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the Kyoto protocol is expected to do in its initial commitment period, from 2008 to 2012. In the process, the Montreal protocol has delayed warming by up to 12 years. This delay may have kept the world from passing the ‘tipping point’ for abrupt and irreversible climate change - a point that some of my colleagues calculate could be 10 years away.”  There’s more work that can be done, namely phasing out all use of the HCFCs that were meant to be a transitional chemical after the CFCs were eliminated.  For more on this critical subject and on the Montreal Protocols that have done so much, go to the Ozone Secretariat’s website. 

I’ve written about the controversy regarding biofuels a couple of times.  There appears to be, in a nutshell, considerable controversy over whether the stampede to cultivate crops for use as feedstock for fuel is a good thing or a bad thing.  Back in May, I reported on a blockbuster report from the prestigious “Foreign Affairs” that warned of dire consequences for food production and pricing if we go too far down the road with this.  See Biofuels – “All that glisters is not gold” here.  The equally prestigious “Nature” expressed concerns at their blog (referenced at the same post). 

On the other hand, I talked about the hopeful signs for cellulosic ethanol – an ethanol not derived from food itself, but from byproducts of food production, and non-food crops.  See Advanced Research - Cellulosic Ethanol at my post here from July.

Meanwhile, biodiesel production plants are popping up all over the U.S.  These are big plants.  See this from “EERE Network News,” an informative electronic newsletter from the US DOE’s Division of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.  (Check out the cute and useful video, and other materials for kids, on energy saving – it’s a “Ratatouille” thing.) 

The venerable sustainable development think tank, Worldwatch Institute, has an extensive new report on biofuels.  See Food and Fuel: Biofuels Could Benefit World’s Undernourished.  This report, undertaken with support from the German government, is duly cautionary about the use of food crops.  Corn comprises half of the world’s ethanol production now and it requires vast amounts of fuel and chemical input for its cultivation and conversion.  Palm oil plantations in Asia and sugar plantations in Brazil are responsible for massive rainforest destruction.  But, the report concludes:  “the long-term potential of biofuels is in the use of non-food feedstock, including agricultural and forestry wastes, as well as fast-growing, cellulose-rich energy crops such as perennial grasses and trees.”  And, as always, Worldwatch sees the big picture.  Although they think that biofuel production could vastly benefit developing countries by creating cash crops for farmers and save money for these fragile economies by avoiding the enormous costs of importing fossil fuels for transport, a responsible approach “…must be part of a portfolio of options that includes dramatic improvements in vehicle fuel economy, investment in public transportation, and better urban planning.”

In the same vein, see also this recent op-ed in the FT from the director-general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Biofuels should benefit the poor, not the rich.

With Hurricane Dean going to slam into the Yucatan tonight, with winds now at 150 mph and maybe intensifying, it’s not a bad time to consider some of the discussion about hurricanes.  (If you like to track hurricanes, there’s no better place than the National Hurricane Center, with its terrific graphics and its up-to-the-hour information.)

I saw the aftermath of Wilma in Mexico a year and a half ago.  The beaches were severely eroded, there were still blown-down trees in a lot of places, and reconstruction was going on everywhere.  Wilma caused $3 billion in damage in 2005 and this storm could be stronger.  Katrina, of course, is still very much on people’s minds, certainly with the folks in New Orleans, as hurricane season turns up a notch.  I’m convinced that Katrina was a wake-up call to millions of Americans on climate change.  The evidence of the devastation, all along the Gulf Coast, was just too stark to ignore.  Whether or not there was a direct link between climate change and Katrina is moot, certainly.  But there is no doubt that the potential for fury from our winds and waters was made eminently manifest.

What we do know is that hotter water makes for stronger hurricanes.  We also know that the oceans have heated up in recent decades.  Now an article from last week in the “Daily Nebraskan” says:  The number of Atlantic hurricanes in an average season has doubled in the last century because of climate change, according to a new study.  (I don’t think anyone can accuse this blog of relying solely on the MSM.)  The timely paper that the article references is called “Heightened Tropical Cyclone Activity in the North Atlantic: Natural Variability or Climate Trend?” and it’s in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.  The authors conclude from their findings “…that the overall trend in SSTs and tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers is substantially influenced by greenhouse warming.”

I referenced Chris Mooney’s book, Storm World, in a post from last month - Surfin’ the Blogs.  Chris writes eloquently about the intersection of science and politics.  Chris also has a climate change blog, The Intersection.  “Nature” has a superb climate change blog, “Climate Feedback.”  They recently had a discussion of Storm World.

Who else has a view?  The insurance companies!  Premiums are rising fast in Florida.  See Howls over hurricane insurance from the “Christian Science Monitor” today.  Private insurers are running for high ground and leaving the state to pick up the tab.  So, would you guess that the insurance companies think there are going to be more storms and more intense storms at that?  I would.  If you still think this is a shuck, go to the webpage on climate change for Lloyd’s of London.

This brilliant little cartoon by Kevin Kallaugher in this week’s number of “The Economist” sums up the “land rush” (or, more accurately, seabed rush) that’s on to claim mineral rights at the North Pole. 

See this article from “The Guardian” for good background on what’s going on here, and this from Reuters.  Also, there’s an excellent multimedia feature available from the “Financial Times.”  Go here for their interactive Scramble for the Arctic feature.  (Requires Macromedia Flash Player 7 or higher. Go here to download if you need it.)

Speaking of “The Economist,” it’s got special coverage on energy alternatives.  It’s a very useful collection of articles and other special features on renewables and other energy issues such as storage.  Good stuff.

Meanwhile, of course, the cartoon illustrates another story about the Arctic:  the breaking up of the ice.  It’s a startling and scary story, I’m forced to admit.  There’s been a lot of excellent coverage, including this comprehensive coverage, with compelling video, from CBS News.   Their science and technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg spent three weeks aboard a Canadian research ship studying arctic climate change.  (You can also get some of this story through Google Earth at the CBS website.) 

Related to the story of the massive ice melt taking place in the Arctic, and also on Greenland, is the “conveyor belt” in the Atlantic.  More properly called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), this is an ocean circulation system that carries warm upper waters North and returns cold deep waters South.  As reported in “An Inconvenient Truth”, the conveyor belt could, given too much thaw, change direction and radically alter the climate of the Northern Hemisphere.  This story, Scientists Track Climate-Driving Atlantic Current, from Reuters, says the dire effects of Arctic ice melting haven’t yet effected the conveyor belt, but scientists are building a vast array of monitoring devices to get key readings.  Here’s a link to the monitoring project itself.

First of all, I have to apologize for being off the airwaves for so long.  We closed on a new apartment on Friday and that’s got all sorts of busy work associated with it – and I’ve been decompressing a little since.  Plus, I had a print article on sustainability at airports that I was wrapping up, and getting all the artwork in order.  Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Bad News:  According to Britain’s Hadley Center (of their Met Office), which has had a very high profile indeed on climate science:  “At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.”  Here’s their release from last Friday.  Reuters used this language:  “Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009…”  See their story.   “Science” has the full article.  You can see the abstract here, and then decide if you want the whole story.

Actually, there’s some good news in this:  better modeling.  Bill Connolley’s terrific climate science blog, “Stoat,” has some input, including a link to a story by “Nature” focusing on one critical part of the Hadley Center’s report:  that they’ve come up with a much-improved climate model “…that is capable of including natural variability in the climate system — such as that arising from anomalies in ocean circulation or ocean heat content — into modeling carried out by a global climate model.”  “Nature” quotes a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:  “We now have a convincing concept for combining observations and models.”  “Nature” also has a great blog, “Climate Feedback,” that covered this as well, with links to scores of news stories.  Go here for the blog post and to check out this really worthwhile source.

Good News:  Do you remember the roller coaster ride I was writing about here regarding New York City’s congestion pricing scheme?  (Congestion Pricing in New York from July 17 and Mike Bloomberg’s Earth Day from April.)  Well, as you might recall, the powers that be in New York City and State, managed to set aside politics and ego long enough to come up with a compromise that will further the congestion pricing scheme by having a commission draft something, then having it approved by all the relevant bodies.  (Am I cynical about New York politics?  A bit, I’ll admit.  If you haven’t experienced it first hand as I have for 25 years, inside government and campaigns, and from the outside too, as an environmental activist and professional, as a writer and bemused observer, you can always try Robert Caro’s truly extraordinary The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.)

The good news is that the US Department of Transportation has pledged $354 to help underwrite the costs for this and to improve mass transit as an adjunct to the program if the local and state government get their act together.  See this from “Crain’s NY Business” plus the release from Mayor Bloomberg’s office.

“Make it so, Number One.”

Climate Change “Skeptics” - The big story is that “Newsweek’s” cover this week has an arresting burning planet image, and the copy reads:  Global Warming Is A Hoax*  and the asterisked portion says “Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.  Inside the Denial Machine by Sharon Begley.”  Now “Newsweek” is not exactly the capital of Left Blogostan.  It’s as MSM as you get.  Here’s a pungent quote though:  “…outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.  Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”  Ouch!  There are great links, some videos from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and graphics here, even a quiz, and an archive of “Newsweek’s” excellent coverage of climate change.  You must see this article.  It’s quietly revolutionary.

Meanwhile, history’s most famous American vice-president who never became president, Al Gore, is making news along the same lines from Singapore.  See this article from today’s “Daily Mail.”

If you’d like a little more depth, go to “SourceWatch’s” comprehensive coverage of global warming skeptics. 

Richard Branson – I’m writing a magazine article on “green airports” (for print, if you can believe it) and coming up with some great, great material.  I’ve been meaning to write about Richard Branson and his commitment to fighting against a climate change crisis.  If you go to the Virgin Atlantic’s “Sustainability Challenge” webpage, you’ll find some pretty interesting and useful information.  You can also read about “The Virgin Earth Challenge” and the $25 million prize. 

The FPA Climate Change Challenge – Now maybe if we work together here, we can come up with some good ideas.  Who’s got a good idea?  Okay, I’ll start this off.  Are you ready?  Since light color reflects heat efficiently (albedo effect), then why don’t we start breeding white grass and get people to accept this for their lawns and golf courses?  We should also use these on roofs. 

Not incidentally, there is a wonderful, growing movement for, at least, green roofs.  Check out these good people and their important work - Greenroofs.com.

If you don’t like white lawns, then let’s have some good ideas.  I promise not to poach them.  You can apply for Branson’s prize and I’ll just be happy to tell people that you “heard it here first.”

The Renewable Portfolio Standard!  The House just voted on the RPS amendment and it passed 220-190 – not nearly as close as many had thought. 

To reiterate, it requires electricity suppliers to have 15% renewable energy in their mix by 2020.  See numerous references in the posts below to the RPS and to links for specifics.  A great victory occurred today for renewable energy and the environment.  Let’s really hope that it stays in when the Senate and House conference on their respective energy bills in September.

P.S.  An hour later the House passed the full package, H.R. 3221, by a vote of 241-172.

P.P.S.  A few hours later now, and the House has just passed the tax portion, H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, by a vote of 221-189.

Here’s a summary of today’s events from Bloomberg News.

…I’ll find what I’m after.  I’ll throw off my sorrow; beg, steal or borrow, my share of laughter.”* 

So anyway, the Energy bill isn’t going to the floor today.  In a wide-ranging press conference today, Nancy Pelosi said that the Renewable Portfolio Standard was being “whipped” by Tom Udall of NM and his cousin, Mark Udall, from CO, and that she thought they had high hopes for its passage as an amendment.  The whole package is still in the Rules Committee with a ton of proposed amendments for both the energy bill itself, and with fewer for the accompanying tax legislation.  So, according to the Speaker, we should see the energy package tomorrow on the House floor.  

For more, see this from “Congressional Quarterly,” and, to add a little more fuel to the fire, White House threatens to veto House energy bill from the “WaPo.”  (If you have trouble getting access there, just register.  It’s quick, free and easy to do.)  

* from the great Anthony Newley/Leslie Briscusse show “The Roar of the Greasepaint — The Smell of the Crowd”

It appears that the Udall-Platts RPS amendment is going to the floor tomorrow.  Here is some coverage, Last Chance: RPS Vote Looming in House, from RenewableEnergyAccess.com, a website with excellent, up-to-date information on renewables.  The National Venture Capital Association’s president is quoted here as bullish on the renewable energy industry.  Another arresting bit of news here is that:  “Wood Mackenzie, a non-partisan energy research firm, estimates that a 15% RPS would lead to a net savings of $100 billion for U.S. consumers over the next 20 years, and that wholesale power prices would decrease by 7% to 11%, compared to a business-as-usual scenario.”

Here’s another article, Renewable-mandate backers upbeat about vote, from “The Hill,” and a release from the American Wind Energy Association.  I think it’s highly significant that the National Farmers Union is onboard.  See their release, “Increasing Renewable Electricity Use Positive for Rural America.”

Tune in to C-Span tomorrow for the festivities. 

Okay, the suspense, at least on one important item, CAFE, is over for the moment.  The “Washington Post” reports House Drops Tougher Auto Fuel Economy.  Go to Speaker Pelosi’s statement in which she says “… we will have an opportunity to address this issue shortly.  The Senate energy bill does contain a CAFE provision, which I support.”

The remaining issue then is the Renewable Portfolio Standard.  I guess we’ll have to wait to see until tomorrow and the Rules Committee meeting whether or not the Udall-Platts amendment on the RPS will be given consideration on the floor on Friday.  For a little more background and some of the politics of this, here’s a story from “The Gristmill” from the other day on the powerful MoveOn.org’s endorsement of the RPS.

There was an earlier article at the “Washington Post” today, Democrats Lack Unity in House Over Energy Bill.  That’s the understatement of the day.

These politics are murder. Unfortunately, even though every public poll indicates widespread support for increasing our energy efficiency and our use of renewables, and from across the political spectrum, including, increasingly, even traditional conservative groups like Evangelical Christians, some of the political factions in Congress seem stuck in their old thinking.  Anyway, no matter what happens on Thursday in the Rules Committee and Friday on the floor, the conference is going to be epic.