Climate Change

I had the opportunity this summer to write on how American airports are embracing sustainability.  I found a pretty great story:  a really smart, passionate and committed corps of professionals are creating a very brave new world indeed at our airports.  See the story, The Only Way to Fly, from “Planning,” the magazine of the American Planning Association.

(See also my post on Green Flying from July.)

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. 

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.”

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.”

Okay, the suspense, at least on one important item, CAFE, is over for the moment.  The “Washington Post” reports House Drops Tougher Auto Fuel Economy.  Go to Speaker Pelosi’s statement in which she says “… we will have an opportunity to address this issue shortly.  The Senate energy bill does contain a CAFE provision, which I support.”

The remaining issue then is the Renewable Portfolio Standard.  I guess we’ll have to wait to see until tomorrow and the Rules Committee meeting whether or not the Udall-Platts amendment on the RPS will be given consideration on the floor on Friday.  For a little more background and some of the politics of this, here’s a story from “The Gristmill” from the other day on the powerful MoveOn.org’s endorsement of the RPS.

There was an earlier article at the “Washington Post” today, Democrats Lack Unity in House Over Energy Bill.  That’s the understatement of the day.

These politics are murder. Unfortunately, even though every public poll indicates widespread support for increasing our energy efficiency and our use of renewables, and from across the political spectrum, including, increasingly, even traditional conservative groups like Evangelical Christians, some of the political factions in Congress seem stuck in their old thinking.  Anyway, no matter what happens on Thursday in the Rules Committee and Friday on the floor, the conference is going to be epic.

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. 

I’m working on an article now for a print publication on “green airports.”  As Mr. Spock would say:  “Fascinating.”  Here’s an informative video clip from the European Union on aviation and climate change. 

Really well done.  Also, here’s an article from a recent number of “The Economist” - Travelling green tonight. 

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.

“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an ‘men
Gang aft agley,
An’lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”