Climate Change

I’m killing two birds with one stone here (even though I’m a vegetarian).  I’m going to highlight some of the more important recent stories I’ve not gotten to while pointing out some of the blogs I consider to be in the top tier.

Gore kick starts sweeping program to slash U.S. carbon emissions is a headline from Tuesday from the comprehensive, always informative and eminently readable DeSmogBlog.  He’s getting $300 million together to convince those that yet need convincing that climate change is upon us, and needs to be mitigated sooner rather than later.  I’d be happy to have President Obama enlist the Nobel Laureate in a major effort to effect the changes we need.  (If President Clinton or President McCain wanted that, that’d be good too.)

More reasons to love Lieberman-Warner is one of the many useful things that are usually being represented at The Gristmill.  This cites an analysis by the Center for American Progress’s Dan Weiss and his colleague, Alexandra Kougentakis, that S. 2191, the current vehicle for an American cap-and-trade program, would mean thousands of new jobs.  (I worked with Dan way back when he was a staffer on clean air for the Sierra Club and I was an activist.)  The Gristmill is an always stimulating blog.

Antarctic ice breakup caught on tape reads the story from the impeccable Climate Feedback, a blog from the folks at “Nature,” one of the world’s preeminent science publications.  Here’s the poignant video clip they’ve got posted.

Bangkok Climate Change Talks 2008 is the lead from the Climate Science blog at the National Wildlife Federation.  This reports on the talks that are a follow on to the big meeting in Bali last December.

Soot in the Greenhouse, and Kitchen is from Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth at the “NY Times.”  This highlights a story that caught my eye in which a new study identifies soot from industrial and transportation sources, and from developing world cooking practices, as having a significantly more potent impact on climate change than previously thought.  I wrote about solar box cookers, solar flashlights and innovative design for the developing world here last year.  Man, why aren’t we on that?  (That’s not a rhetorical question.  I’d like to know.  I’m going to be following up with some sustainable development folks before too long.) 

I wrote about congestion pricing in the Big Apple here and here back in August and July.  London, Stockholm and Singapore each have made it a big hit in their towns, and now they’re trying to bring it to Broadway.  Well, it took another positive step yesterday when the NYC City Council approved a plan that had been negotiated over several months time.  It was a close vote, for this particular legislative body, 30-20, and only the powers of persuasion of the City Council’s Speaker, the formidable Christine Quinn, turned the tide in its favor.  See this from “Newsday” and this release from Hizzoner Mike Bloomberg’s office.

On to the state legislature where the new Governor, David Paterson, and the Senate leader, Joe Bruno, are in favor of the plan, but the Assembly Speaker, Shelly Silver, is keeping us all in suspense.  They’re ironing out the final details of the state budget agreement now, and hopefully, the Big Three of Paterson, Bruno, and Silver will be able to get to the congestion pricing plan before a deadline from the federal Dept. of Transportation expires next Monday.   If we miss the deadline, that’ll be about $350 million down the chute that could be spent to implement the plan, and for other related transportation costs.  We (New Yorkers) would, in a word, be nuts to miss this opportunity to increase business by billions by reducing traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and get federal support for this all in the bargain. 

UPDATE - April 4 - “Crain’s NY Business” is reporting here that the proposal, although on life support in the NY State Assembly by some reports, may live if it’s created as a pilot program. 

*******************

Noteworthy event for New Yorkers:  See “Carbon Trading Update:  Business Opportunities for Asian Sustainable Infrastructure,” a high-level panel discussion from the Asia Society on April 7. 

I have been remiss, in the extreme, in my blogging.  I’m going tomorrow to what should prove to be an exciting conference, State of the Planet 08, at the Earth Institute at Columbia University.  I will report on that soon.  In the meantime, here are a couple of tidbits to keep you fed, if not sated.

Kansas and Coal – I wrote about the ambitious plans for new coal-fired power plants that were nixed by the State of Kansas here in October and then about the nefarious dealings of the plant’s proponents here in February.  Well, the update from Reuters is Kansas Government Vetoes Plan For Coal-Fired Power Plants.  Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed legislation that attempted to brush aside the decision made by her administration last fall to deny the permits.  Here is the good governor’s veto message and also an executive order establishing the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group.  (Can you say Vice President Sebelius?  I think she’s in the mix for the Democratic party running mate’s job.)

Green Building – Best Bang for the Buck – You know I love green building.  (See any number of posts here.)  Well the terrific folks at GreenBiz have an article telling us how effective it is at reducing GHG emissions - Green Building is Best Bet for CO2 Cuts in N. America: Report.  In addition to lowering emissions, the report they cite, Green Building in North America: Opportunities and Challenges, looks at “… other environmental benefits to green building and its potential to improve worker health and productivity.” 

I really do love the coverage in the “Financial Times.”  It goes deeper than a lot of sources to give you stories that really mean something, rather than just the latest media frenzy over some political brouhaha or celebrity gossip.  It also lives in the critical interface between commerce, public policy and international relations.  (You may need to register.  If so, go here.  You get 30 articles a month for free.)

Oil Sands – Here’s a bit of a bombshell:  The new energy law that the US passed in December may bar the US government’s purchase of petroleum from Canadian oil sands.  Canada warns US over oil sands is the recent “FT” headline.  The story says that a “narrow interpretation” of The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 526 to be precise, would limit government procurement of alternative fuels that have lifecycle GHG emissions greater than conventional fuels, as oil-sand derived petroleum clearly does.  (Elizabeth Kolbert, the pathbreaking “New Yorker” writer, had a characteristically great article, Unconventional Crude, on the Alberta tar sands in November.)  The “FT” has even given us a copy of the letter from the Canadian ambassador in Washington to DOD Secretary Robert Gates, cc:  the US secretaries of Energy and State.  One energy expert said:  “The Canadians do, in fact, have something to worry about, particularly from a Democratic administration.”  A Canadian authority said:  “Classifying fuel from the oil sands as non-conventional fuel … would unnecessarily complicate the integrated Canada-US energy relationship.”  Yeah, but it might improve the world’s chances of avoiding catastrophic climate change.  Does that count?

Jatropha – I’ve been pointing out studies that pinpoint biofuels as another badly misplaced priority – except, of course, for those making a great honking profit and the elected officials that profit politically from furthering bad policy.  (See any number of posts under Biofuels and Agriculture.)  The “FT” has a good piece on a non-edible plant that thrives on generally non-arable land:  India finds cheap energy may be an easy nut to crack.  (I wrote about jatropha’s promise here in September.)  India hopes to radically accelerate the cultivation of jatropha for biodiesel over the next several years.  The pilot projects they’ve been doing have been successful and, not surprisingly, they have no wish to displace food crops from productive land for biofuels cultivation, a strategy that has been increasingly identified as a recipe for disaster on several fronts.  Shailendra Shukla, director of Chhattisgarh Renewable Energy Development Authority, is quoted:  “If you’re growing soya for biodiesel, you’re wasting your time, money and land.”  The project is also about providing power to the countryside.  As the article says, “Alternative energy dovetails with the government’s aims to develop rural areas - including electrifying villages - to narrow a widening divide between rural and urban India.” 

Gas Flaring – This is nearly universally practiced in the oil industry, yet it wastes truly enormous amounts of energy and adds prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.  ( I wrote about this in September here.  The post also includes a very instructive video from the World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction.)  Qatar, Kuwait and Oman, according to the “FT” here, are getting on board the World Bank’s program.  The total annual loading worldwide is 150bn cubic meters, producing 400m tons of CO2.  “The three Gulf states set to join the World Bank’s partnership together contribute 7bn cubic metres a year …”  Not chopped liver. 

The House of Representatives has passed another version of the energy tax package that failed to make it into the energy law passed in December or into the economic stimulus package that became law earlier this month.  (See this and this from June on the Senate’s failure on the tax portion and also see  “Economic Stimulus” under The Business of Renewables below.)  What the legislation, HR 5351, would do, essentially, is rescind $18 billion in tax breaks that the oil and gas industry are presently enjoying and use that money to underwrite advances in energy efficiency and renewables, including extending tax credits to the renewable industry.  This article from CNNMoney.com, House Votes To Repeal Oil Tax Breaks, Finance Renewables, is one of the few of hundreds that characterizes the legislation correctly.  Most of the articles describes “tax hikes” or “new taxes” when, in fact, we are talking about the rescission of tax breaks from which the oil and gas industry are deriving considerable benefit at the same time they are experiencing record profits.  Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel said yesterday in the floor debate:  “The American people do not deserve to pay the oil companies twice: once at the pump and once again on tax day.  There are record prices at the pump, and now we have record taxpayer subsidies for the big oil companies. As my mother used to say, ‘such a deal.’”  Taxpayer subsidy.  Good expression. 

Will the Senate pass the same legislation?  I’m not that great at predicting, but I would guess no.  If they do, President Bush will undoubtedly veto it.  There aren’t enough votes to override.  (And yes, it makes me angry.)

Sorry, dear readers, about not being on the blogwaves in the past few days.  I plead the press of work and beg your kind indulgence.  Here are a couple of quick hitters for now.  I do hope to have some heftier posts for you soon.

Biofuels and Food – Here’s a leader (Britspeak for editorial) from yesterday’s “Financial Times” that is hard-hitting and unequivocal:  In the face of world food shortages and rapidly escalating prices, “…producers should stop wasting food by subsidising biofuels…”  See Biofuels will not feed the hungry.  See also my post below, Are Biofuels A Bummer?, from February 15.

Tech Miracles? – See these two items for fun, and perhaps profit:  a compressed-air-powered car and nanotechnology that can provide personal hydrogen electrolyzers for all your needs.  First, Tata Motors looks at air-powered vehicle “that would use air as fuel and emit no pollutants in city driving.”  Works for me.  How about this then from “EETimes”?  Nanoparticles could make hydrogen cheaper than gasoline.  QuantumSphere’s “nanoparticle coatings could make hydrogen easy to produce at home from distilled water, and ultimately bring the cost of hydrogen fuel cells in line with that of fossil fuels.”  See their succinct, convincing video.

Less Than Meets the Eye – This “Time/CNN” article, U.S. Remains Cool to Warming Pact, sums up the much-ballyhooed announcement the other day by a White House official that:  “The U.S. is prepared to enter into binding international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases as part of a global agreement in which all major economies similarly undertake binding international obligations.”  But as UNFCC executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, explains here (courtesy of AP), “If it’s a quid pro quo, then it’s a nonstarter.”  Let’s also wait to see what the present administration says or does further on the cap-and-trade legislation that is wending its way through Congress. 

I wrote about one of the several climate change six-hundred pound gorillas at King Coal in November.  There was a hard-hitting piece in yesterday’s “Progress Report” called Bad News For Big Coal.  (Fair warning:   “Progress Report” is a newsletter of the avowedly partisan Center for American Progress, which I’ve noted before, along with the fact that I find their work to be thorough and well-documented.)  The article talks about the fact that the federal government recently withdrew from the flagship CCS development, FutureGen. 

It also talks about the counterattack launched by Sunflower Electric in Kansas against that state’s huge decision in October to deny permits for two 700 MW coal plants.  Go here for my post on that, including Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby’s extremely lucid video announcing the decision.  He said then “I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing.” 

Sunflower Electric and the nation’s biggest coal company, Peabody, have launched “Kansans for Affordable Energy,” an exceedingly thinly disguised public relations campaign in the guise of a citizen’s initiative.  This brings to mind a bald-faced ploy in the 1980’s against federal acid rain legislation:  “Citizens for Sensible Control of Acid Rain” (CSCAR).  Peabody then was among the coal companies and utilities behind this “citizens’” group.  See this excellent item, among several, from the excellent “DeSmogBlog,” on the brawl in Kansas.

If you like, you can see this TV ad from Sunflower.  No mention of coal, but pictures of windmills; says it was recommended for approval, but, in fact, the permit was denied.  Warm and fuzzy, just like coal-fired power plants. 

Download link 

For a decidedly more vicious tack, check this out, from a series of their newspaper ads:

The Kansas legislature is being bribed and bludgeoned into attempting to reverse the state’s denial of the permits, but Sebelius has already said she’ll veto any such legislation.  For a good look at what the folks at Sunflower and Peabody would really like to say, see this video spoof from the “Wichita Eagle.”

Even more significantly, getting back to the big picture on coal, three of the world’s biggest investment banks, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and Citi, have, by signing the Carbon Principles, admitted the riskiness of putting money into coal-fired plants.  For more, see Know Your Power.

I’ve written about biofuels a number of times.  You can check out the various posts under the category Biofuels and Agriculture.

Now two recent important studies, published in “Science,” are saying that biofuels are causing quite a bit more harm than good.  The A.P.’s H. Josef Hebert wrote this article (appearing in “USA Today”) on one of the studies.  “The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly ‘plow up more forest or grasslands,’ releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.”  The German Marshall Fund, one of the sponsors of the research, led by Tim Searchinger, one of their fellows and a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, has a link devoted to this research.  Searchinger says in a policy brief that “…switching from gasoline to corn ethanol doubles greenhouse gas emissions for every mile driven.”

The other study, “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt,” from The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota, has similar and complementary conclusions.  It asserts, among other things, that “Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace.”  The Nature Conservancy has a lot of excellent material on this study here, including an interview with the lead scientist for the report, Joe Fargione, the report itself, and an arresting slide show depicting some stark scenes of lands burned out for biofuel crop cultivation.  Fargione tells us that “Most people don’t realize that globally there is almost three times as much carbon in the plants and soils as there is in the air. Our natural ecosystems provide an incredibly valuable service of carbon storage and climate stabilization if they are left intact.”  (A critical new initiative that came from the Bali talks in December was a new emphasis on protecting and enhancing forests.)

Christopher Flavin, president of the venerable Worldwatch Institute, had this take on the reports and work his institute has done:   Time to Move to a Second Generation of Biofuels.  WI and The Sierra Club issued a report last fall, Destination Iowa - Getting To A Sustainable Biofuels Future, in which they recommended a number of policy directions including (a) accelerating development of cellulosic biofuel technologies and the infrastructure to harvest, transport, and process the new crops, (b) supporting farmers who want to invest in sustainable fuel crops such as perennial grasses or fast-growing trees, and (c) reducing tax subsidies for food-based biofuels and increase subsidies for fuels with a low-carbon footprint, such as waste and cellulose-derived biofuels.  WI had another highly useful commentary in January in which they said, among other things, that “The benefits of biofuels can be many: reducing dependence on oil, keeping money and jobs in the local economy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, to name a few. But not all biofuels are created equal, and their benefits in fact vary wildly depending on the feedstock, how it is grown and harvested, where it is grown, and how it is processed.”

An AFP story from January, courtesy of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s newsfeed, reports Internal EU report casts doubts on its biofuel strategy.  The article says that the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house scientific body, “criticises an EU plan to boost the use of biofuels in transport, concluding that their costs outweigh the benefits.”

There’s a mountain of damning evidence piling up here.  Will policymakers heed it?  That’s always the $64,000 question on matters of energy, the environment and particularly climate change.  The “Washington Post” had a terrific article last week on these two analyses in which the reporter, Juliet Eilperin, notes that they “…could force policymakers in the United States and Europe to reevaluate incentives they have adopted to spur production of ethanol-based fuels.”  She references a letter sent by ten senior scientists working on climate change to President Bush and congressional leaders urging them to reconsider the present path in light of the new studies.  “There is an urgent need for policy that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forest, grassland or cropland,” the scientists wrote. 

“Half the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions needed to make the world safe can be achieved at a net profit to the global economy, a study has found.”  That’s how this article from today’s “Financial Times” leads.  (The threshold for “safe” is the 550 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the IPCC posits is the limit.  That’s about double the amount we had prior to the Industrial Revolution.)  Ceres, a coalition of institutional investors, commissioned the report by the McKinsey Global Institute.   Ceres’s president is quoted in the article:  “Efficiency is the fastest, cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gases and could bring large profits to the global economy.”  This graphic from the Swedish energy group, Vattenfall, underscores her contention.

You can access the full report online from the MGI - Curbing Global Energy Demand Growth: The Energy Productivity Opportunity.  You’ll find not only the report there, but a slideshow as well and a pretty good video from a recent event in which New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former US Secretary of Energy and recent presidential aspirant, is the keynote speaker and Diana Farrell, director of the MGI, presents the findings from their report.  There’s a good panel of experts discussing this after Farrell’s presentation.

The report asserts that “targeted policies can overcome the policy distortions and market imperfections that are currently acting as barriers to capturing higher levels of energy productivity.”  They go on to say “The obstacles that thwart improvements in energy productivity include information gaps, market-distorting subsidies, an inadequate financing infrastructure, and misaligned incentives. To overcome such barriers, policy makers must terminate distorted policies, make the price and use of energy more transparent, create new market-clearing and financing mechanisms, and selectively implement demand-side energy policies (such as new building codes and appliance standards) while also encouraging demand-side innovation by companies.”  In the category of “market-distorting subsidies” they might include the billions in dollars in tax breaks currently be enjoyed by the oil and gas industry and the eye-popping subsidies being given to ethanol production. 

This is hugely useful information and policy makers everywhere should embrace it.  The new energy law from Congress does incorporate a good number of important initiatives that the MGI report endorses.  Mile to go, though, miles to go ……