Climate Change

I’ve mentioned the question of the renewable energy tax credits any number of times at this blog, most recently on September 21 and 24 below.  Well, the House, not surprisingly, did not embrace the Senate’s bill from September 23.  For one thing, the Senate bill, somewhat out of left field and only to placate Republican Senators and the White House, gives new tax breaks for refineries to develop oil from shale and tar sands or for coal liquefaction.  These aims are entirely counterproductive to either helping the renewable energy industry in this country or to reducing greenhouse gases.  The Senate bill also was an omnibus package that included, among other things, a one-year reprieve for 20 million people from the alternative minimum tax (not in itself a bad thing, certainly). 

The House, as some predicted, created a stand-alone bill for the renewables and some other related infrastructure initiatives (as well as personal and business tax relief items) - the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 7060).  It passed on September 26 by a vote of 257 – 166.  This is, not incidentally, a terrific piece of legislation overall with provisions supporting not only renewables but also energy efficiency projects, green building, and the smart grid, not to mention credits for research.  See this story, US renewables tax break imbroglio rumbles on, from the British news service “BusinessGreen” and this, House OKs extending renewable energy tax credits, from Reuters.  (For a little deeper look and some inside baseball, see this from “Congressional Quarterly.”) 

With the Senate and House bills differing so, and it being past time for Congress to break for the elections – and with the little matter of the $700 billion financial industry bailout somewhat reducing Congress’s ability to focus on extraneous matters – it doesn’t look as if the tax credits are going to fly until, at least, the lame duck session between the elections and the inauguration of the new Congress and President.  Given how difficult this has all been, it might not come into being even then.  It is distinctly possible that the next Congress will be taking this up.  What will the disruption in the tax credits mean for the renewables industry?  It won’t be good, but it won’t be fatal by any stretch of the imagination.  As noted in my last post below, we are already in a renewables revolution.  The only question is how fast will it come – and will it be fast enough to avert catastrophic climate change. 

I sat in on some of the exciting sessions of the FPA’s annual World Leadership Forum (WLF) this week.  If you’re interested in the recent developments in the financial industry and the bigger picture of the “geoeconomy,” there were two panels of experts discussing some of the ins and outs of those issues which you can view at C-Span.

Spanish President Jose Zapatero gave an address in which he noted a number of critical issues in which Spain is actively engaged.  One of these is climate change.  He noted his country’s leading position on renewable energy.  He said that countries which take the lead in developing and deploying new renewable technologies will enjoy huge advantages.   (This echoes what I heard recently from a leading writer, editor and consultant on energy who I was interviewing for an article on the  “smart grid” movement.)  Spain has one of the top wind energy industries in the world.  This good little article from “Treehugger” characterizes Spain as an RE “powerhouse.”  One of the biggest manufacturers worldwide is Gamesa.  Not incidentally, I wrote here recently about Spain’s push for electric cars.  President Zapatero’s claims are entirely well founded.

See also this BBC clip on how strongly Spain is pushing renewables.

There was a particularly stimulating panel on energy at the WLF that was moderated by John D. Hofmeister, a former President of Shell Oil Company.

The first to speak was Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU Commissioner for External Relations and Neighborhood Policy.  She cited the IPCC and other research identifying climate change as an extraordinary threat.  She noted that a number of analyses have identified it as a “threat multiplier,” so it is a significant security concern as well.   She quoted Robert Schuman, one of the visionaries who fostered the creation of the organizations which grew into the European Union:  “World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”  (See the entirety of the landmark “Schuman Declaration” here.)  Ferrero-Waldner was clearly equating the overall threat of catastrophic climate change with world war.  Unfortunately, for my money, she dwelled a little overmuch on the question of pipelines carrying oil and natural gas coming into Europe and not enough on the potential for regional and international cooperation on renewables.  (See my references here and here about the extraordinary potential in the Desertec initiative and the “SuperSmart” grid.)

Ashok Gupta is an old hand, having led NRDC’s efforts on energy for years.  He defined energy security as encompassing not only the availability of the energy supply but also how energy use impacts global climate change and local and regional environmental concerns.  He also emphasized the critical importance of energy efficiency. 

Phil Sharp is a former Congressman who runs Resources for the Future, an influential policy shop in Washington.  He said that oil prices are going to remain high for the foreseeable future, driven by demand, and by the fact that we are in the age of Peak Oil.  He thinks energy is going to remain very high on our to-do list because of these factors and because of the threat of climate change.  He sees the need to “decarbonize” our societies.

Last, but not least by a long shot, was Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran, correspondent for “The Economist.”  Vaitheeswaran is quite articulate and had a number of salient points to make, among them that there are three pillars of energy instability:  poverty, the environment, and geopolitics.  On the first of these, he cited the fact that much of the developing world is off the grid and relies on wood, coal, dung and other cheap fuels for energy for heat and cooking.  This has a devastating health impact because of the enormous amounts of soot generated.  (See my post, Black Carbon and Solar Cookers.)  On environmental concerns, he noted the problems of climate change and local pollution.  On the matter of geopolitics, he said that because there is so much oil concentrated in so few countries, that this is considerable cause for concern.

On the positive side, Vaitheeswaran and I share the perspective that there are extraordinary developments that are shaping things such that we will see the movement toward clean, reliable distributed energy continue to burgeon.  He identified three “megatrends” that are fostering an energy revolution:  First, he sees “smarter” government involvement.  Governments are market minded, but they are increasingly thoughtful about energy and environmental policy.  Secondly, he says there’s a bottom-up revolution being driven by NGOs (like NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund, and many others) in which there is a growing confluence in areas like climate policy and business.  (See, for instance, my review of EDF’s Earth: The Sequel and the work of the US Climate Action Partnership.)  Finally, Vaitheeswaran sees a golden age of innovation coming into being.  I’ve referenced his book, ZOOM: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future, a number of times here.

All in all, this was a blockbuster panel and discussion on one of the critical issues of the day.  Stay tuned for much more from the FPA in the coming year on Energy and the U.S. Economy.

Well, the Senate, after Republicans blocked a vote eight times previously, passed a tax package yesterday that includes the extension of the various credits for renewables.  See this from Reuters and this from Bloomberg.  The vote was a breathtaking 92-3.  The draft legislation does pare away billions in oil and gas industry tax breaks in order to pay for the renewables.

The more high-profile component of the Senate package, though, is a one-year reprieve from the alternative minimum tax.  This impacts 20 million people.  This part is not “paid for” – that is to say the tax measure is not offset by an increase in revenue somewhere else.  In House takes up Senate-passed tax break package from the AP, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said “… in keeping with our commitment to fiscal responsibility…” House Democrats will introduce a bill that does not add to the national debt.

So now it’s anybody’s guess what’ll happen.  Maybe behind the scenes, this has all already been worked out between the leadership in both houses.  Or maybe it hasn’t.  Congress works in mysterious ways.  Stay tuned.

Congress might be a little preoccupied this week with saving the world from the consequences of the overleveraged, unregulated excesses of the financial industry, nevertheless, they may actually make time to find a way to create a package of tax credits that will bolster the renewables industry, keeping its incredible recent momentum going.  Senate to vote next week on energy tax credits is the headline from Reuters and the bill not only extends the tax credit program for renewables, it creates an incentive for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).  That’s a shot in the arm for companies like GM who are banking on PHEVs.  (See my last post below.)

This deal was reached with bipartisan agreement.  What has killed every previous attempt in the Senate this past year was Republican opposition to paying for the credits by taking it out of the considerable package of emoluments that the oil and gas industry enjoys.  (I’ve written about this a bunch of times, the last time in Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose - Part Deux.)  For more depth on the Senate’s package and some of the inside baseball, see this from “CongressDaily.” 

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, the “Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act” was passed on September 16 by a vote of 236-189.  It has the tax credit extension plus many other features including the controversial – that’s my polite way of saying damnable – opening up of many sites to offshore drilling.  There are, on the plus side, some more new programs like PHEV incentives and more help on energy efficiency.  Here is a list from the AP of the bill’s key provisions.  See also the recent “NY Times” editorial on this:  Ms. Pelosi’s Compromise.

Will any of this go forward before the elections?  Maybe.  One possibility is for the renewable tax credits to be peeled out of the larger packages, be reconciled between the two houses of Congress, and sent out for the President’s signature.  Of course, if this package contains the taking away of the oil and gas industry perks, then the President will likely veto it.  Maybe, in the end, even with all the frantic activity, this will have to wait until the next administration and the next Congress.  C’est la guerre.

Permafrost – I wrote about the problem of thawing permafrost here recently.  One group of researchers in Canada, at least, believes that permafrost is more “stubborn” than previously thought and will melt more slowly than predicted.  See this story from AFP.  The qualification in this is that the uppermost layers of permafrost may degrade as quickly as predicted, releasing dangerous amounts of GHG into the atmosphere, but that the deeper levels will stay frozen for much longer periods of time.  You can find the abstract for their work here at “Science.” 

Electric Cars – We’ve looked at the critical automotive sector a number of times including here, here and, with the most fun, here when Click and Clack took us on a tour of the future.  The Chevy Volt was introduced last week - see G.M. at 100: Is Its Future Electric? from the “NY Times.”  GM is going to put a lot of its eggs in this basket it seems.  Chris Paine, who wrote and directed the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” is quoted in the article. “G.M. seems motivated and ahead of the competition.  It’s a cultural shift of huge proportions for a vast auto company to embrace the concept of a car that’s more than an internal-combustion engine.”  If you dig cars, and their green potential, see AutoblogGreen.  See also the book ZOOM: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future. 

Not incidentally, I’m writing an article on the Smart Grid and one of the recurring themes in what I’ve been seeing is the natural fit that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) have for how we’re going to be using, storing and producing electricity in the not-too-distant future. 

FT Special on “Modern Energy” – The “Financial Times” had a nice, comprehensive updated look at a number of important energy issues last week.  One of the articles, by the way, looked at electric vehicles.  Go here for the whole series of articles in this informative report. 

Bottled Water – I’ve been telling myself to write a bit more on one of the world’s all-time greatest scams ever:  bottled water.  I did flag a (characteristically) perfect “Doonesbury” here to you several months back.  For now, note this short article, also from the “FT,” Sales of bottled water go flat as consumers return to the tap.  See also this from the Worldwatch Institute. 

Energy Efficiency – I wrote the other day about some important work on energy efficiency.  (See last post below.)  Here’s another key report that I should have mentioned back in July when it came out:  How the world should invest in energy efficiency from McKinsey.  (Registration is required, but it’s free.) 

Meanwhile, in Chicago, the City has issued a comprehensive, detailed Climate Action Plan.  See also Chicago Sets Goals for a Cooler City from the Environmental News Service.  One big component here is addressing Chicago’s buildings.  They will move to retrofit at least half of their buildings by 2020 hoping to gain a 30% reduction in energy use.  Their energy conservation and their buildings codes will be upgraded to align with the latest international standards.  This is right in line with what Britain has undertaken, as I noted in the post just below.  I’ve been an admirer of Mayor Daley’s environmental leadership for years.  He really does get it. 

Phil Clapp – We lost a very strong voice for working to address the climate change crisis this past week when Philip Clapp died.  See this from the “LA Times.”  He founded the National Environmental Trust which merged this year with the Pew Charitable Trusts.  These organizations have been doing groundbreaking work on climate change policy, as well as working on other environmental issues. 

There are two important reports just out on energy efficiency.  One is from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the other is from American Physical Society.  There is also a major building energy conservation program getting underway in the UK.  (I have written about the critical subject of energy efficiency here, here and here since February.)

The JRC provides “…scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies.”  According to this article from ENDS Europe Daily, via the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s (WBCSD) newsfeed, the EU’s residential buildings could produce a 7% reduction in GHG for the EU as a whole if a series of energy conservation measures were taken.  “Up to 95 per cent of the projected cuts could be achieved at no cost or could even generate a profit, it says.”  This theme of achieving massive energy savings with little cost or even at a net financial benefit recurs throughout all the studies and reports on efficiency – and in practice.  You can access the JRC’s report, “Environmental Improvement Potential of Residential Buildings,” here.

The American Physical Society, “the leading professional organization of physicists, representing more than 46,000 physicists in academia and industry in the United States and internationally,” launched its report, Energy Future: Think Efficiency, at a press conference in Washington yesterday.  The APS report is comprehensive – it looks at buildings and transportation.  From the press release:  “The report concludes that the average light-duty vehicle should have a mileage of at least 50 miles per gallon by 2030 and that widespread construction of homes that require no fossil fuels should be possible in most areas by 2020.”  (I have also written about the myriad benefits of green building a good number of times here.  It is, in a word, the future.) 

Folks, this report is from physicists.  These are not pie-in-the-sky hippie tree-huggin’ earth lovers (like me).  The APS represents serious, sober-minded hard scientists who don’t take anything as a given.  And they are telling us that we can do things differently, smarter, and much more cost effectively.  They are saying that the technology is here and now.  All that is required is political will and focus.  “The American people need leadership from the Congress and the next president on this issue,” said Nobel Laureate Burton Richter, chair of the study panel and director emeritus of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.  There is a wonderful body of information in this report and at their website. 

Meanwhile, back across the pond, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, last week announced a massive private and public investment in energy conservation.  PM makes £1 billion energy pledge is how the 10 Downing Street website describes it.  Much of the program will be a low-tech but incredibly profitable pursuit of “… subsidised improvements such as loft and cavity wall insulation.”  There will be money, as well, to help lower-income households with energy payments.  The BBC has this take on the program. “The government says its aim is to insulate every home in Britain by 2020 - and energy companies, councils and voluntary organisations will be making door-to-door visits in deprived areas to promote the scheme.”  Good on ya, Gordon. It’s the right thing to do.

In my review of a really great read, Cape Wind, I mentioned Bluewater Wind’s proposal for Delaware waters.  There was an informative story in yesterday’s “NY Times” magazine on this project:  Wind-Power Politics.  It’s got some great inside politics on how the Bluewater project forged ahead, was sideswiped by some key state legislators working with competing interests, and then put back on the rails – although significantly scaled down from the original 600 MW proposal – by another powerful local politician.  One of the important themes in this article is the powerful impact of building community support. 

Another theme is the idea of the extraordinary wind resource just begging to be used right offshore the most densely populated part of these United States:  the Boston-NY-Washington (BosNYWash) corridor.  This stretch of coastal cities now, of course, runs far beyond Washington in the South to the Carolinas, and a fair bit up the coast past Boston into New Hampshire and Maine.  There are a literally scores of millions of consumers – residential, commercial, institutional and industrial - within 10 or 15 miles of the Mid-Atlantic Bight.  How much windpower is there?  330 gigawatts (GW) according to University of Delaware researchers.  How much do we use in that part of the country now?  185 GW.

I remember a study from many years ago from Union of Concerned Scientists purporting that all of New England’s power needs could be met by offshore wind.  I have heard Cape Wind’s principal, Jim Gordon, say that all of the electrical needs of the Cape, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket could be met by his offshore development on a normal day, and that on a good day, all the surface transportation could be powered as well – if hybrid plug-ins were being deployed.

What’s the problem!?  Competing power companies for one, wanting to stick with coal and gas-fired plants.  Another stated problem is the “viewshed” issue.  Bluewater, very smartly, used computerized graphics to show the folks in Delaware how tiny the “view” issue would be.  What I don’t get – and I’ve said it here before – is how you can think of these windfarms as anything other than magnificent.  In Europe, as you know, offshore wind is busting out all over.  Bluewater’s principal, Peter Mandelstam, is quoted in the article to the effect that “The Europeans see offshore wind turbines as sentinels, protecting them from energy domination by foreign powers.” 

See also the “NY Times” link to other windpower stories and the website of the American Wind Energy Association.  See particularly their exhortation for Congress to act now on the Production Tax Credit for renewables.  The PTC’s critical importance is discussed at some length in the “NY Times” magazine article, and has been discussed a number of times here as well.

I am not going to say a lot here about how Governor Palin and the Republicans are treating the climate change issue at this point.  I looked at McCain and Obama back in June.  It is very interesting to note, though, that Palin’s entry in the race has generated a huge amount of ink,  and climate change is one of the areas on which her views are being made known.  I just wanted to flag some of this coverage to you. 

Here, for instance, is an AP article (via Yahoo) out today:  Palin’s statements on climate change at odds.  Here is Sarah Palin’s Record on Climate Change from the wholly nonpolitical sustainability think tank, Worldwatch Institute.  “Politico” reports that Palin, McCain differ on global warming.  A Tom Friedman column recently had some not-entirely flattering things to say on the selection of Palin in the light of climate change and energy concerns, among them “With his choice of Sarah Palin …. John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.”  Ouch.

I am given pause, I will say, by this paragraph from this year’s Republican platform.  “Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government. We can — and should — address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly.”  No dogma, though, in that.  (See the platform, at page 95 under Environmental Protection for this.)

Green Jobs – A report out yesterday from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and commissioned by the Center for American Progress, says that a $100 billion, two-year national investment in renewable energy, mass transportation, and a “smart grid” for electricity, would yield two million new jobs, with a big chunk going to the manufacturing and construction industries.  Green Recovery - A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy would, among other things, help in “the reconstruction of local communities and public infrastructure all across America, setting us on a course for a long-term transition to a low-carbon economy that increases our energy independence and helps fight global warming,” according to this from the Center for American Progress.  (Caveat:  Try to ignore the exceedingly corny graphic of a wind farm backed by a superimposed rainbow background.)  The announcement from PERI on this has a state-by-state breakdown of how the program could generate jobs and income.

I’ve mentioned jobs a number of times here, including in reporting on a major DOE wind study from this post.  See also Millions of Jobs of a Different Collar from the “NY Times” from April.  The “NYT” also has an informative podcast with the reporter at their link.

“Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore …” – One more virtually limitless renewable resource is the ocean.  Its tides and its waves have been pulsing for eons and there is no reason to expect that they should stop anytime soon.  RenewableEnergyWorld.com is, as I believe I’ve mentioned, a terrific resource.  UK Behind Marine Renewables’ Rising Tide is a comprehensive look at the state of play of projects and technologies in Britain.  Beyond that, it shows why the UK is driving much of the activity in this hugely promising field.  Great read. 

Scorecard – Reuters has a very useful compendium of where several countries, the EU and some other international compacts all are in regard to their approaches to climate change.  See FACTBOX - Greenhouse Gas Curbs, From Australia to India.  See also their environmental blogs – valuable and compelling reading.

Hurricanes – I’ve shied away from the hurricane debate.  I’m pretty well at ease with the facts that the oceans are warming and that warmer oceans will produce gnarlier storms.  Beyond that, it goes a little over my head.  However, we’ve been getting some big storms blowing through the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, as you know, in the past month or so.  If “Time” has something to say about these matters, though, I can certainly pass along their worthy insights.  Is Global Warming Worsening Hurricanes?  Time delves into that.  I would also very much defer to the excellent Chris Mooney over at The Intersection on this question.  He has, in fact, written a book on this:  Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming.

Meanwhile, I will tell you, as a political scientist, that, no matter what you believe about the physics of hurricanes, Katrina vastly increased the salience of climate change as a serious issue for Americans.

Carbon Capture and Storage – I have posited my skepticism about the feasibility of CCS a number of times here.  (See CCS - The Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage and CCS Continued.)  Now Vattenfall, an exceedingly reputable European energy giant, has launched an ambitious pilot.  Their press release says “The carbon dioxide produced in this pilot plant will not be released into the atmosphere, instead it will be almost completely separated, liquefied and further treated for long-term secure underground storage.”  Good on ya, mate.  See also the Vattenfall press kit on CCS for more information.

My concern remains the cost effectiveness and the time frame in which we can do this, globally.  Can it be done in time?  Won’t we waste precious time, money and focus on CCS when we could so much more quickly, easily and more cheaply be getting our energy efficiency ratings up, optimizing our energy use through distributed generation and “smart” grids, and be capitalizing on renewables?  

I wrote recently here about the (really) enormous carbon sequestration potential of the terra preta approach to soil enrichment for agriculture.  Well, you wouldn’t be surprised to know that the earth already has sequestered many billions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane over time.  The bad news is that as the world warms, the permafrost that has kept so much of these GHGs in its icy grip is also warming.

Permafrost is defined as ground that has been frozen for more than two years.  Much of the earth’s permafrost has been frozen for thousands of years.  We have known about the disastrous potential of the release of ice-trapped GHGs for several years.  Recent research, however, indicates that the amount of carbon stored in the Northern Hemisphere is even greater than previously thought.  “The estimated 1,672 billion metric tons of carbon locked up in the permafrost is more than double the 780 billion tons in the atmosphere today.  ‘It’s bigger than we thought,’” says the lead researcher.  See this from “ScienceDaily.”  If much of this permafrost melts, then the implications for accelerating global warming are momentous.  See also the abstract for this paper.

How bad is the potential impact.  An article from the “Discovery Channel” is titled Arctic Tundra Holds Global Warming Time Bomb.  As you can see, there’s a very bad feedback loop involved here.  As the air warms further, more permafrost is thawed and more GHG is released, which further warms the atmosphere, etc., etc. 

For another take on permafrost, see these stunning photographs from, where else, “National Geographic Magazine.”