Climate Change

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.”

Andrew Revkin had a sobering article in the “NY Times” on Sunday - As China Goes, So Goes Global Warming.  First of all, with all of the hoopla surrounding the meetings in Bali, Revkin puts it nicely in perspective:  “The Bali achievement? Two more years of talks.”

More to the point, though, is the fact that we really do seem to be in a headlong rush towards the cliff internationally with our GHG emissions.  Revkin writes:  “Richard Richels, an economist at the Electric Power Research Institute, helped produce an ominous forecast: even if the established industrial powers turned off every power plant and car right now, unless there are changes in policy in poorer countries the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could still reach 450 parts per million — a level deemed unacceptably dangerous by many scientists — by 2070. (If no one does anything, that threshold is reached in 2040.)” 

What that means is that if China, India, Brazil and the rest of the very rapidly industrializing world don’t find a better way, then we are in for the direst of futures.  As Ross Perot might say:  “End of story.” 

What’s the answer?  Answers – plural – is more likely.  Leapfrog technologies and technology transfer are two approaches.  I’ve mentioned “leapfrogging” here and here, and Revkin references the importance of R&D and “transferring” new technologies to developing economies:  “That is why several dozen top-flight climate and energy experts sent a letter this month to members of Congress and the presidential candidates seeking a tenfold rise in the federal budget for energy research, now about $3 billion a year.”  (See also Revkin’s terrific blog, DotEarth.)

I’ve also mentioned “price signals” such as the cap-and-trade approach and the carbon tax at numerous points along the way here.  See several posts at Business and Economics.

Here’s another take on this – and it seems very promising to me, unlettered as I may be as an economist – from Yale professor Judith Chevalier:  a tax on carbon consumption.  So, if you can’t get China or some other recalcitrant to restrain GHG emissions through some international protocol (to which the Bali meetings were supposed to point the way), then take it out of their exchequer by creating barriers to products created in high-GHG economies.  Reward the producers who make products that are more earth friendly.  Given the manufacturing output now, and the fact that some of these economies will be exporting bigger, higher value products, like cars, before long, then this is a serious incentive to lower their GHG output.  An economic policy analyst at one of the leading environmental organizations, Environmental Defense, called this a good idea.  See A Carbon Cap That Starts in Washington.  She references particularly the work of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in this regard.  This is a deep-thinking group of folks working on climate solutions. 

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.  

Here’s a smattering of recent articles that are not uninteresting.

The estimable Fiona Harvey, on the environmental beat for the “FT,” has a good overview and analysis of the meetings last week in Washington on climate change - Yo, Kyoto.  She has some of the same sort of barbed quotes I referenced in my last post below.  Try this, for instance, from Phil Clapp, president of the US National Environmental Trust:  “There is about an ounce of action to every 200 pounds of rhetoric.”  Harvey however also noted “…even many of those sceptical of Mr Bush’s motives agreed that last week’s meetings at least marked a reversal of his attitude during his early period in office…”  This article is a good look at where we are internationally after last week’s cornucopia of climate change discussions and before Bali in December.  It’s definitely worth reading. 

In an over-pessimistic and somewhat loopy article, Why Climate Change Can’t Be Stopped from “Foreign Policy,” two veterans of the present Bush administration’s State Department assert that we’re too late.  It’s a new take on climate change “skepticism” – we’re past the “tipping point” and so we shouldn’t bother to spend too much on halting, and even perhaps reversing, the warming.  It’s time to spend money on mitigating the impacts.  Those damn hippie “…environmental advocates don’t like to concede this point.  Eager to force deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, many of them hype the consequences of climate change—in some cases, well beyond what is supported by the facts—to build political support.”  Okay, we’re past the point of no return on climate change, but the consequences are being hyped.  So, don’t try to deal with the problem of the emissions and the deforestation and other contributors because it’s too expensive, and besides it’s not going to be that bad anyway, so just build some levees and that’ll take care of that.

That’s enough time spent on that argument.

Andrew Revkin, equally as admirable as Fiona Harvey, and who has been covering global warming for the “NY Times” for a number of years, has an admittedly depressing but thoughtful and well-balanced take here - Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts.  (I wrote about the Arctic story back in August - The Arctic Heats Up in the News.)  “While experts debate details, many agree that the vanishing act of the sea ice this year was probably caused by superimposed forces including heat-trapping clouds and water vapor in the air, as well as the ocean-heating influence of unusually sunny skies in June and July.”  There’s a lot here to consider.  This is science reporting at its best.   

Finally, Tom Friedman also writing in the “NY Times,” describes how Toyota, who likes to bill itself as a very green company, and sells a lot of cars based on that image and, not incidentally, on the reality of the high MPG those cars get, is trying, along with the American car makers, to water down the CAFE upgrade in the draft energy legislation from the Senate.  See his Et Tu, Toyota?  In July, in Energy Legislation in the House, I wrote:  “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!”  Friedman’s theory seems to be that Toyota wants the American car industry to stay behind the eight ball.  “Toyota wants to keep its green halo and beat G.M. in the big trucks, too,” Friedman quotes an expert from NRDC. 

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.”

National Petroleum Council Report – Okay, I will admit it:  Because this was a report by the National Petroleum Council, from a task force led by ex-Exxon chief and vociferous global warming “skeptic” Lee Raymond, commissioned by a presidential administration that has been famously indifferent, if not hostile, to the environment, I didn’t take much of a look at the news yesterday on this.  However, Facing the Hard Truths About Energy appears to have a few important, timely and surprising, given the source, messages.   An analysis in the “FT” today says the report highlights that we are in “…for a sustained period of tight supply - and that policy needs to start responding to that right now.”  The first and foremost recommendation is to go to the “…fastest technically possible increase in vehicle fuel economy standards.”  Another recommendation is to build an international framework for reducing GHG emissions.  Wow.  Is this really the voice of the oil industry?  The “FT” quotes Daniel Yergin, the task force Vice-Chairman:  “I think it will change the framework of the debate, not just in the US but around the world.”  Yergin is the head of Cambridge Energy Associates and the author of an extraordinary history of the oil industry, The Prize.  If the NPC is serious, they ought to beat the heads of every member of the House of Representatives with a copy of this report, particularly John Dingell.  This report is timely because we are being held up on energy in the House largely because of the MPG problem.  Here’s a major American industry – an understatement if you hadn’t noticed – that says we should be “…doubling miles per gallon by 2030, saving 3m-5m barrels a day of oil demand.”  Yergin also says “The study demonstrates that energy efficiency is a very near-term energy resource, and tapping it is essential to national energy strategy.”

Two Media Notes -  “The Baltimore Sun” has a clear message for Nancy Pelosi:  Bring the fight on MPG to the floor of the House.  Go around John Dingell.  In A fuelish choice, they say “Ms. Pelosi should bring her leadership persuasion to bear…”  Meanwhile, the “L.A. Times” took a big stick to Big John yesterday.  It begins thus:  “A million years of compression and heat may someday convert Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) into petroleum, just as it did the other dinosaurs.”  Ouch.  The editorial centers on Dingell’s cynical offer to introduce carbon tax legislation, admittedly designed to fail, to show that taxes are not going to be embraced by the American people, even if they are to mitigate the climate change crisis.

Center for American Progress – Energy and Congress is at the top of the list today in the daily “Progress Report” from the Center for American Progress.  Here’s an excerpt:  “At least 150 lawmakers have signed onto legislation proposed by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Platts (R-PA), which would require a combined average of 35 mpg by 2018. While automakers have vigorously opposed these efforts, better fuel standards may be a boon for both them and drivers. ‘Increasing the average fuel economy of America’s new autos to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018 would save consumers $61 billion at the gas pump and increase U.S. employment by 241,000 jobs in the year 2020, including 23,900 in the auto industry,’ according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, as stricter fuel economy would force large automakers to invest in new, cleaner technologies and machinery.”

Stay tuned.