Climate Change

The Energy Bills – First, before we get to the reading opportunities, there are rumors in the blogosphere that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to offer up the renewable portfolio standard and renewable tax credits as sacrificial lambs to the gods of fossil fuel and nuclear power.  See Bye, bye, Ms. Renewable Pie from the excellent “Grist Mill” and News Alert: If You Love Renewable Energy, It’s Time to Freak Out from the “Huffington Post.”  The American Wind Energy Assn. is so concerned that it’s sending out an action alert asking people to tell their Senators to keep these critical components of a progressive energy bill in! 

Pelosi has said publicly that she wants this legislation voted on soon.  See Pelosi to push for vote on energy bill from UPI.  As always, stay tuned.

World Energy Picture – The International Energy Agency issued their annual report this past week on the state of the world’s energy.  In the executive summary, we learn that demand for energy is continuing to rise steeply, driven in large part by the wildly burgeoning economies of India and China, and that “the world faces a fossil energy future to 2030.” 

The “Financial Times” has a really useful ongoing, “in-depth” section on energy security, and they covered the IEA story this week:  IEA sounds alarm over huge energy demands.  They also reported that the Asian energy focus shifts to renewables going “…well beyond the International Energy Agency’s expectations.”  Let’s hope so.

The “FT” – which I must say is an extraordinary news organization – has still more coverage of energy in this special report.  (You can register for a finite number of articles for free, or an unlimited amount for a fee – go here.)  The special report has over 20 articles on everything from wind to nukes, and covering areas from India, Russia and China to Venezuela and the Middle East. 

Tar Sands – The incomparable Betsy Kolbert has an article in this week’s “New Yorker,”  Unconventional Crude on Canada’s tar-sand boom.  Unfortunately, you actually have to buy this at the newstand.  Anything she writes is worth the cost of the magazine.  (If you have access to a library database and want to wait a few weeks, you’ll be able to get it there.)

Biofuels – Meanwhile, back at the “FT,” there was a compelling little op-ed by the director of the Center for International Development at Harvard, Ricardo Hausman, saying how “biofuels are set to transform the global economy.”  You can see his op-ed and sign up to ask him a question online this coming week if you go here.

“The Business of Green” – The “NY Times” had a special section this past week that has a number of great articles on, among other things,  a carbon tax versus cap-and-trade (something I’ve been covering here recently), nanoscience and energy, and nimbyism on nuclear waste. Finally, there’s also now a blog on the Business of Green from the “NYT’s” sister paper, the “International Herald Tribune,” and Dot Earth from the Times reporter, Andrew Revkin. 

(I referenced Revkin and his new blog in Important Miscellany, my post from Oct. 31.)

There’s lots and lots of great reading out there.  Set aside a couple of hours and settle in to catch up on some of this material.

ICAP – An international coalition has “…announced the formation of the International Carbon Action Partnership to fight global warming.” Here’s the press release from two days ago in Lisbon.  ICAP’s founding membership includes, among others, New Jersey, California, New York, the European Commission, New Zealand, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.  They have come together to attempt to forge the foundations for a truly global carbon market structure.  The belief is that a post-Kyoto agreement will necessitate this international financial architecture and so those who are interested in setting up or furthering cap-and-trade regimes are clearing a path now.  See also this release from Cordis, the EU’s news service.

Business Gets Greener – “Fast Company,” a magazine focusing on business innovation and the people driving all that creative thinking and doing, has a great little article: 50 Ways to Green Your Business.  Two tidbits:  “Wal-Mart is providing funding to the biggest truck manufacturers–ArvinMeritor, Eaton, International, and Peterbilt–to develop the first heavy-duty diesel-hybrid 18-wheeler. Wal-Mart, which operates the second-largest truck fleet in the country, will test the prototypes next year.” and “The much-hyped Bank of America Tower, which will be the second-tallest building in New York when it’s finished next year, is the first skyscraper in America to pursue LEED Platinum certification. Our favorite innovation: a geothermal heat-exchange system that’s the first of its kind in a high-rise. In the winter, pumps will draw heat from groundwater to help warm the building; in the summer, the process will work in reverse, pumping excess heat into the bedrock beneath the tower. The system will contribute to the building’s goal of using just half the electricity of a conventional building its size.”  Check out the other 48 ideas at the link above, or see their slideshow.

Children and Climate Change – The American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization of 60,000 medical professionals, just issued a report saying, among other things, that “Direct health impacts from global warming include injury and death from more frequent extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and tornados. For children, this can mean post-traumatic stress, loss of caregivers, disrupted education and displacement. Increased climate-sensitive infectious diseases, air pollution-related illness, and heat-related illness and fatalities also are expected.”  Go here for the report and here for the policy statement.  This is comprehensive, responsible work and makes yet another important argument for getting our collective act together. 

Not incidentally, you can find out a great deal about initiatives having to do with children at the FPA’s blog on Children written by the estimable Cassandra Clifford.

“Dot Earth” – Andrew Revkin, the superb climate change reporter for the “NY Times” has a new blog examining “…efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits.”  Revkin explains the rationale for his new effort in Why a Blog, and Why This Blog?  See also this slideshow from Revkin.  This will be a worthwhile site to visit for some time to come. 

“Biofuels - At What Cost?” – The International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) has added fuel to the fire on the debate about the choices that are being made on biofuels.  (See previous posts here on More on Biofuels and Biofuels – Boon or Bane?)  The GSI “…is concerned that many of the policies currently in place are ineffective [my emphasis] in achieving greater energy security and lower greenhouse gas emissions, the objectives which have officially been used to justify increasing subsidy levels.”  See their latest report, on the U.S. subsidy programs, and the other reports in the series, here.  

The influential Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) “…brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to support sustainable economic growth, boost employment, raise living standards” and other worthy pursuits.  An “FT” headline from early this week proclaimed:  OECD warns against biofuels subsidies.  The OECD’s recent damning report echoes earlier concerns expressed in a study they did along with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).  Growing bio-fuel demand underpinning higher agriculture prices reads the headline from the press release from April.  (I last wrote about this a few weeks ago under Biofuels – Boon or Bane?)

One of the problems here is that there is a huge amount of money and energy going into producing biofuels from food crops.  The “FT” articles says:  “The study estimates the US alone spends $7bn (€5bn) a year helping make ethanol, with each tonne of carbon dioxide avoided costing more than $500. In the EU, it can be almost 10 times that.”  Here’s a very interesting chart from Vattenfall that shows that biodiesel production falls into the range of the most expensive GHG-reducing tactics.  

Also, here’s an instructive short video from the OECD.

Meanwhile, in a wonderfully hopeful story from the “NY Times” – Mali’s Farmers Discover a Weed’s Potential Power – we learn the potential of jatropha as a biofuel crop that will produce fuel, save money, and increase agricultural productivity for food crops.  Hard to beat.  And in an article from the “FT” we also learn that the developing world has an interest:  Biofuel crops to transform landscape.  The landscape in question is Britain’s and “The government’s Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme estimates that 15-20 per cent of Britain’s agricultural land may have to be devoted to growing biofuels to meet international obligations to reduce carbon emissions and improve energy security.”

I’ve been in the throes of several big changes the past couple of weeks, one of which, moving our household, has been a bear.  I’ve not been lolling around on the beach as I hope many of you have, or hiking, or touristifying in some wonderful, pleasant place.  There certainly have been boatloads of tourists in sunny Manhattan this summer.  Good for them and good for the local economy.  In any event, I’ve not been able to blog as thoroughly or as frequently as I would have liked.  I’ll be picking up the pace again soon.

In the meantime, here are some bits and bobs.  First, an editorial, Testing time on energy, from the “International Herald Tribune.”  This is a concise summary of the state of the Congressional energy legislation and what, in a perfect world, we should see, among other things, as a final product from the conference committee:  a strong MPG mandate, a renewable energy portfolio, a rescission of some generous tax breaks presently enjoyed by the oil and gas industry, and a sane approach to biofuels.  As the editorial says on this score:  “The conferees’ main task here is to make sure that intensive cultivation for biofuels of any kind does not result in water pollution, habitat destruction or loss of forestland.”  I might add that Congress needs to moderate the impact on food prices of biofuel production, not to mention the bite on the federal treasury of some eyepopping subsidies.  I’ve written on this recently, Biofuels – Boon or Bane?, and I wrote on the energy legislation extensively during the Spring and early Summer.  (You can look in the Governments and Politics category.)

Speaking of the oil and gas industry, see this headline from the “FT”:  Flaring burns off gas worth $40bn, US study reveals.  See also this from IPS via “Energy & Climate News” from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.  (For your own free subscription, go here:  subscribe-wbcsdenergy@group.wbcsd.org.)

Between flaring and forest burning, the impact on global warming of all this unnecessary combustion is devastating.  The World Bank has been leading an initiative on Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR).  Reducing flaring not only has implications for reducing GHG, but also for local poverty reduction.  So much of that gas could be put to productive use.  There’s a lot of great information at the GGFR website, including this video from “Earth Report.”

http://www.tve.org/vdo/bonfire%20web256K_Stream.mov

I wrote last week about various climate talks, including the meetings in Vienna.  See this from the AFP, also courtesy of the WBCSD:  UN climate talks in Vienna end with broad pledges, wobbly language.  The article tells of “…broad pledges but weak language…” 

Finally, the UN’s 60th Annual DPI/NGO Conference is convening in New York this week and the theme is “Climate Change:  How It Impacts Us All.”  Hopefully, I’ll be able to cover some of this for the blog at the end of the week.  In the meantime, you might check out the program and tune in to some of the webcasts.

******

See also the Great Decisions Fall Update on Climate Change at the FPA 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.

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. 

We are poised for a big and hopefully exciting week on energy in the House.  At “CNNMoney.com” there’s a good comprehensive read, Energy debate moves to House, on what to look for this week.  As I’ve pointed out, there are a lot of good things that are not going to be subject to much debate, energy efficiency being among the best.  However, the big-ticket items that are still highly controversial are increased MPG for motor vehicles and a renewable portfolio standard (RPS).  The MPG battle, as you know if you’ve been following the blog, is a pitched battle between Detroit and the people who think we owe it to ourselves to reduce oil consumption for any number of excellent reasons, not the least of which is to reduce our GHG emissions.  What makes Detroit particularly powerful in this case is that the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is John Dingell, and he’s a staunch – and effective – battler for what Detroit perceives to be its best interests.

Here’s my question?  Doesn’t anyone in Detroit think that they might sell more cars if they had better gas mileage performance?  It sure seems to work for the Japanese!

Here’s another article from one of Pelosi’s hometown papers, the “SF Chronicle” - Energy bill will test Pelosi’s command.  This article’s got great coverage and input from key players such as the two authors of the RPS bill as well as comment from environmental lobbyists from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency.  (See these two websites for some comprehensive looks at the legislation and the issues.)

Meanwhile, the House passed a massive Farm bill last week.  There is a considerable energy component.  You can see this fact sheet, 2007 Farm Bill Energy Title:   Investing in Renewable Energy Programs to Promote Energy Independence, to get a pretty good look at what’s in it. 

Sorry that I’ve been off the airwaves for a few days.  I think I got some sort of food poisoning at lunch on Friday.  It’s not even safe being a vegetarian these days.  Plus I’ve had a few other irons in the fire which needed tending.

Anyway, here are some stories that I think have good bang for the buck:

Advanced Research - Cellulosic Ethanol – The DOE has awarded three major grants for research and development in the important area of cellulosic ethanol, the alternative to corn and wheat-based ethanol.  As you know, the explosion of production of the latter is causing major concerns about rising food prices.  (See Biofuels – “All that glisters is not gold” at my post here from May.)  Cellulosic has a lot of potential to reduce costs of production and to avoid inflated prices for staple foods.  Sources include cornstalks, wood chips and perennial native grasses so there’s a lot with which to work.  The federal Oak Ridge Lab and Lawrence Berkeley Lab are two of the three centers where this research will play out.  The third is my alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  Here’s the story from UW’s perspective:  Major bioenergy initiative takes flight in Midwest.  There’s a ton of good information here including some audio interviews.  For Wisconsin, there’s a local angle because of the Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative, a “…statewide effort focused on the development of fuel and energy resources from non-food sources in ways that promote regional economic growth in the context of good environmental stewardship.” 

Renewable Energy for the Farm – The very informative AgWeb.com now hosts a Renewable Energy Knowledge Center for farmers.  The web site is sponsored by Farmergy, a consulting service that partners with distributors and installers to create great energy savings for farmers.  This is good stewardship and good business.  The website has news, product reviews, a great Q&A section, and access to information about government grants. 

The Climate Crisis Game – The “Washington Post” ran a story a week or so ago about some Princeton professors who’ve created a game to solve the climate change crisis.  The story, What It Would Take to Put the Brakes on Global Warming, recounts how the professors first came up with their “wedge” approach to reducing warming.  Their paper, Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the next 50 Years with Current Technologies, has produced a lot of serious interest since it first came out three years ago.  Now they’ve produced a game that anyone can play.  Go here for the concepts and the game, including a Flash video introduction.  This will really get you thinking.

Not incidentally, the “Washington Post” has been providing some fantastic coverage on The Threat of Climate Change for some time now.

The Arab World and Solar – This is where one might simply say:  “Duhhhhh.”  After all, what do North Africa and the Middle East have even more of than oil and natural gas?  The sun.  I wrote about some exciting initiatives on the Arabian Peninsula recently under Green Building +.  Well, the “Times of Malta” had a story recently:  Arab countries urge solar future.  Really bold projects are being envisioned here including “trans-Mediterranean High Voltage Direct Current transmission lines” that would connect Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) power plants to the European grid.  CSP plants derive their energy from arrays of curved mirrors reflecting solar radiation onto either absorber tubes or towers to heat liquid to power turbines to turn generators.  I talked about some of these sorts of plants while I was En Vacance in June.  (See under “Largest Solar Thermal Plant…”)  Oh yeah, and massive desalination plants are a component too.  The level of cooperation between the EU, and particularly Germany, and the Arab states is quite breathtaking – and hopeful.  See the Damascus Declaration for the official word on this.

I’m really not kidding – stop me if I’ve said this before – when I say that I feel as if I’ve stepped through some time and space portal into a whole new world of smart, brave and brilliant initiatives.  I keep seeing this stuff and continue to be blissfully amazed.

Party on, Earth.