Climate Change

The UN Process – As you know, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), located in Bonn, is the governing body for the Kyoto Protocol, its Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and much of the work that the UN does on climate change.  Its executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, has this perspective on the road after the Bali meetings. Aside from the enormous international media exposure that the conference received and the setting out of a timetable, there were, de Boer notes, immediate results in “the areas of adaptation funding, technology transfer and reducing emissions from deforestation.”  He calls for a global “Climate Change Marshall Plan” in which the industrialized countries will help the developing world with energy efficiency and other measures. 

Hawaii – The White House is hosting a get-together this week in Hawaii as a follow-up to the meetings it held in Washington in late September.  I mentioned those talks here and how bad the reviews were here.  As Reuters reports in World’s big polluters meet in Hawaii over climate, the 15 largest GHG-emitting nations will meet, along with reps from the UN and the EU.  One skeptic of these talks, Angela Anderson of the non-partisan Pew Environment Group, is quoted here:  “The question back in September was, ‘Does the fact that they’re launching this process indicate some change in the position of this administration?’  There has been no change in position whatsoever in this White House. They were hoping to sell their position to the rest of the world and that’s not working.”

Reuters further reports, however, that the Bush administration has made a $2 billion pledge for a clean technology fund. 

Japan – Meanwhile, the Japanese government has made a $10 billion commitment, and they expect to make a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.  See Tokyo sets emissions cut target from the “Financial Times” and also this op-ed from the Japanese Prime Minister.  Yasuo Fukuda.  This statement, from the leader of the world’s second-largest economy remember, jumped off the page at me:  “We all know we must change our ways of living. A carbon-free society can no longer be a mere fantasy.  It is the shining house on the hill for which we must all reach.”  Carbon-free society!  You go, Yasuo!

Energy Islands – I couldn’t resist this item on what might or might not be a fantastical approach to renewable energy:  archipelagos of artificial islands that will produce electricity, clean water and even food.  See Energy islands could use power of tropics from “The Guardian.”  The architect Alex Michaelis is vying for Richard Branson’s $25 million prize for a big, innovative GHG-reducing project.  The article reports:  “At the heart of each island is an ocean thermal energy conversion plant which can create electricity from sea water where the difference between the temperature of the surface water and the deep is 20C or more.”  Here’s an excellent graphic showing how the system would work.  

EPA’s Unpopular Decision – I wrote earlier this month, here, about the lawsuit against EPA for denying California’s request for a waiver to institute carbon dioxide requirements for motor vehicles sold in that state.  Since, the EPA announcement and the lawsuit, there’s been a flurry of activity investigating this decision.  The final call by the EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, appears to have flown pretty much full in the face of what staff had recommended.  A story from the “LA Times” at the time of the denial in December, EPA chief is said to have ignored staff, reported an unnamed EPA staffer involved with the waiver process as saying:  “California met every criteria . . . on the merits.”  The “S.F. Chronicle” had further reporting on this yesterday:  Behind EPA’s rejection of state emission rules.  They report “Newly released documents show that Environmental Protection Agency staff members made a strong case that California should be allowed to proceed with its first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas regulations - arguments that the agency’s chief, Stephen Johnson, ultimately overruled.” 

The House of Representatives and the Senate have both been investigating this.  On the House Side, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair, Henry Waxman, from California, initiated an inquiry right away.  See this for the status of the inquiry.  Over in the Senate, Environment & Public Works Chair, Barbara Boxer, also a Californian, has been at this full-tilt boogie, including the introduction of a bill yesterday mandating the reversal of the EPA decision.  Cosponsors of the bill include the two Republican senators from Maine.  Go here for a slew of recent releases from Boxer on this issue. 

Johnson faced the music yesterday in the Senate.  He was apparently not well received.  Here is a link to yesterday’s proceedings with testimony, attachments, and video all available.  The Center for American Progress has coverage on this today.  It’s not for the faint of heart, though, as they are scathing.  It’s fair to say that the CAP, although I find their research thorough and good, based to a great extent on major media reports, is partisan.  The “NY Times” has this today:  E.P.A. Chief Defends His Decision on California.  14 Governors sent a letter to Johnson dated January 23 decrying his decision and three of them testified yesterday as well. 

The GOP Candidates – The A.P. did a nice job of reporting yesterday on the Republican presidential contenders and their views on climate change.  See GOP Hopefuls Split On Global Warming Plans, courtesy of CBS News.  (I’ve written about the candidates recently here and here.)  Romney and Giuliani, for instance, oppose a cap-and-trade regime.  McCain, very much by contrast with all his Republican colleagues in the race, has been more-than-a-little out in front on climate change.  He cosponsored legislation going back five years addressing the issue. 

Returning to the story on EPA’s decision, an editorial in yesterday’s “Sacramento Bee,” quite an influential paper in California, asked:  Where do candidates stand on clean air waiver?  The Governator apparently told The Bee’s editorial page last week, it is “one of the issues that has not been addressed enough” by the candidates.  He knows his state’s voters. 

The EU’s Thrust on Energy and Climate – Today the EU announced its comprehensive renewables plan.  Go here for a wealth of information from them, including releases, video, speeches, key documents etc.

I’ve talked about and will be talking more about the EU’s plans.  Reuters’ very useful “Planet Ark” has this “factbox” on what the EU intends to be doing.  Here’s one pretty significant overall goal:  20 percent reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases in 2020 compared to 1990 level. The cut would be increased to 30 percent if there is an international agreement on the issue.

Tax Credits for Renewables – In the final energy bill from Congress from December (see It’s A Wrap… and numerous other posts), one pretty important component was left out, along with the 15% Renewable Portfolio Standard for electric utilities:  the extension of tax credits for renewables.  Without action by Congress, these tax credits will expire at the end of 2008.  Without them, investment in renewables will plummet.  See Groups See Dim Renewable Energy Future from the A.P. and Renewable Energy Leaders Urge Congress, Bush to Extend Tax Credits Quickly from RenewableEnergyAccess.com. The four major renewable trade associations, American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), National Hydropower Association (NHA) and the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA), are spearheading a drive to get the credits renewed.  They think that this should be part of the economic stimulus package that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Congressional leaders are negotiating now.

Wind Power – I wrote recently about the healthy growth of wind power in China and Australia here, and now there’s a story from “USA Today” about the burgeoning of American wind generation:  Wind power growth gusts strongly in USA in 2007.  The AWEA said that the industry installed 5,244 megawatts in 2007, accounting for 30% of all new electricity-generating capacity.  See their release.

Hydrogen – I wrote in July about Abu Dhabi’s exciting and ambitious green building project at my special article for the FPA:  Great Decisions Analysis: The Green Building Movement.  Now Abu Dhabi has announced another important initiative – a $15 billion clean energy program with a significant hydrogen component.  Here’s how the BBC describes it in their article: “Hydrogen will be manufactured from natural gas by reactions involving steam, producing a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.  The CO2 can be pumped underground, either simply to store it away permanently or as a way of extracting more oil from existing wells, using the high-pressure gas to force more of the black gold to the surface.”

British chemical engineer, consultant and academic Keith Guy said:  “It’s important because it shows that you can generate hydrogen without carbon release from fossil fuels.”  Guy, in another BBC article worth noting, lays out a grand plan for hydrogen. 

I’m not entirely sure how, but I seem to have avoided one of the several six-hundred pound gorillas in the climate change room for nearly a year:  nuclear power.  It might have something to do with the fact that – full disclosure time – I started my environmental activist life a good long time ago fighting against nuclear power.  I have not really changed my view.  No need to go into any of that here now, though.

That being said, it is certainly important to note the many ins and outs of this key power source.  For background, the U.S. Department of Energy has some useful resources here.  For an up-to-date “factbox” on the world’s 439 operating nuclear power plants, see this from Reuters’ “Planet Ark.”

The big story of the day is that the U.K. government has announced a decision to forge ahead with a new generation of plants.  See New nuclear plants get go-ahead from the BBC.  The plants will be privately built, generally in the footprint of existing plants.  (The BBC story, not incidentally, has links to a ton of useful background material on nukes in general and Britain’s history in particular.)  The government’s announcement has not come without voices in opposition.  In short, “Critics say new reactors will be expensive, dirty and dangerous.”  The government’s white paper on “The Future of Nuclear Power” can be found here, along with a considerable body of back up material.

“Planet Ark” has another story about how the British decision is going to influence others.  None of this, of course, is happening in a vacuum.  One of the drivers for the adoption of nuclear power is the threat of catastrophic climate change, with such ecological pioneers as James Lovelock and Steward Brand among the proponents of nukes.  A number of nations, including the United States, Russia, China, France and Japan, announced a pact in September to create a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.  Here’s a news item, again from “Planet Ark,” on the creation of this entity.

Whether you like it or not, nukes are very much in the mix, and it’s incumbent upon all of us concerned about climate change and the issues surrounding it to educate ourselves on the subject.  You’ll be seeing more here.

Insurance Losses – I’ve written about the insurance industry’s concerns about climate change several times before – see “Insurance Industry” here for instance.  See also the webpage on climate change for Lloyd’s of London.

Here’s an article from “Forbes” that hits the point home further.  “Natural disasters wrought by climate change have a staggering price tag, and it’s growing.”  The story cites a report from Munich Re, the world’s second-largest reinsurer. They have a comprehensive accounting of the past year and losses internationally.  In their release, Munich Re quotes one of their board members:  “All the facts indicate that losses caused by weather-related natural catastrophes will continue to rise. As a leading reinsurer, we are ready to deal with this. Ultimately, however, it is society as a whole which bears the cost – in the form of higher insurance premiums or infrastructure repairs financed by taxes. That is why speedy international action is needed. In addition, climate protection can bring huge economic opportunities, thanks to new technologies and increased energy efficiency.” Opportunity – that’s a word that I continue to love.

Important fact to remember:  You don’t get more hard-nosed when it comes to the bottom line than these folks.  It doesn’t hurt to keep the bottom line in mind while we keep pushing for progress.

Wind Power – Here are two reports worth noting, the first echoing what I reported about China’s burgeoning renewables manufacturing sector in the last post below.  The head of the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) told Reuters here:  “We’d expect that the domestic Chinese manufacturers will have an annual production capacity of about 10 gigawatts per year…by the end of 2009.” 

Meanwhile, German Company to Build Massive Wind Farm in Australia is the story from the German news service “DW-World.”  This complex will “…generate enough electricity for 400,000 homes and save greenhouse gas emissions of three million tons of carbon dioxide annually.” 

Global Climate Change and U.S. Law – That’s the title of a new book from the American Bar Assn.  The book “…provides comprehensive coverage of the country’s law as it relates to global climate change.”  It’s edited by Michael Gerrard, one of the most knowledgeable and experienced environmental lawyers in the country.  Here’s a blurb from Bruce Babbitt, former governor of Arizona, Interior Secretary under President Clinton, and a candidate for President himself in 1988.  (I had the chance to work on that campaign and, let me tell you, he would’ve been a fantastic President.)  But Babbitt’s review of the book:  “Creative legal engineering will be needed to address this problem. This book, written by many of the country’s leading environmental scholars and practitioners, provides an invaluable start on this process. It’s a must read for any serious lawyer or policymaker in the field.”  Go here at the ABA website for much more information about the book. 

Meanwhile, LexisNexis has opened an impressive Environmental Law & Climate Change Center.  There’s a very well done webinar available on “Evaluating Global Warming Impacts under NEPA and State Environmental Review Statutes,” lots of news items, and a cornucopia of resources on environmental law.

Quick hitter:  Try this podcast from the excellent folks at Renewable Energy Access.  China’s surge as a renewable energy equipment manufacturer and rapidly growing consumer is one of a number of upbeat insights here.

Also, here’s a story on the growth of investment activity internationally from “Business Week.”  From the article:  “Around the world, investment in renewable energy projects is skyrocketing and will only increase further as calls grow for tighter restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”

Energy – The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has a concise summary of the new energy legislation here.  As I’ve said a number of times, there’s a whole truckful of good stuff in this package.  

One big part of the pie is geothermal and the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) has a summary here of what’s in the bill for R&D in this critically important area.  On geothermal, in January last year a major new report found enormous “… potential for geothermal energy within the United States” and “… that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth’s hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.” See this from the M.I.T. news service and the report itself. (Big file – 14.5 mb!) 

In addition to the new energy law, the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) notes in its weekly newsletter that the omnibus appropriations act passed in late December provides a 17% increase in funds for them.  This is not, as the saying goes, chopped liver. 

Lawsuit – California, 15 other states, and five major nonprofits have filed suits challenging EPA’s recent denial of California’s request to implement its landmark law limiting global warming pollution from new automobiles.  See this from the A.P. and also this from “Wired Science” that reports on the investigation launched by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair Henry Waxman of undue political influence on EPA’s decision.  (Waxman’s a hero of mine going way back to the Acid Rain Wars of the 1980’s when he was chair of the Health and Environment Subcommittee.)

Another old hand, Jim Tripp, general counsel of Environmental Defense, had this to say about the EPA’s decision:  “The agency’s decision defies the law, the science and the will of states representing nearly half of the U.S. population.”  Come on, Jim, say what you mean.  Environmental Defense is one of the five nonprofits involved in the suit.  See their release.

The gloves are off, folks.