If you can't take the heat, maybe you should get out of the city

(Photo of time and temperature during heat wave of 2005 from Flickr and swanksalot/Seth Anderson)

Cities retain heat more than rural or even suburban areas. A combination of steel, concrete and asphalt that absorb the heat and large buildings that break up cool breezes cause what's known as "urban heat islands." That heat is retained at night, with so little vegetation or soil moisture to cool it down.

In New York City, night-time temperatures are as much as 14 degrees higher than those in outlying areas as close as 60 miles away, according to a 2009 American Meteorological Society study.

Now researchers at the Met Office in London are saying there will be an increased effect of urban warming as CO2 concentrations in the air rise.

In case you haven't noticed, a heat wave has descended over Washington, New York and much of the East Coast, with temperatures up around 100 degrees. Too bad the Congressmen who mocked global warming during the cold, snowy winter, are out of town right now. They might begin to have second thoughts. (Though, probably not.)

Increased CO2 will only make things worse, Met scientists say. Urban areas are warming faster than rural ones, according to the Met study, published in Geophysical Research Letters. The researchers forecast daytime urban temperatures will increase 5 degrees Fahrenheit when CO2 levels reach 645ppm, probably by 2050. Night temperatures will rise by the same amount, their models say.

Climate change and rapidly increasing migration to cities, especially in third-world countries, will create health hazards, the study said.

Some climate change deniers have said death from cold equals or surpasses death from heat, so health should not be a concern. However, the U.S. Global Change Research Program said winter cold snaps increase death rates by 1.6%, while heat waves drive them up by 5.7%. So heat is more deadly than cold. And the number of hot nights in most cities is expected to increase significantly.

The heat wave in Chicago in 1995, which killed some 700 people, was deadly because temperatures didn't cool at night and apartments without air conditioning got hotter and hotter as the days went on and it didn't cool down at night.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2007 predicted with increasing global warming, there would be more heat waves with hot nights as well as hot days.

"Every degree is huge, in a city," said Stuart Gaffin, co-author of the Meteorological Society's New York study. "It's the difference between a blackout and getting through a heat wave. NYC this week was flirting with a blackout because of increased demand for air conditioning. A blackout would compound the danger and drive up the number of fatalities in a hot spell.

Which tells us we need to increase the capacity and modernize the electrical grid. And also that we need a price on carbon to slow down emissions into the air that will make all this worse and worse.

(Source: ClimateWire)

U.S. greenhouse gases likely to grow 4% by 2020 if steps aren't taken, new Climate Action Report to UN warns

(Photo of coal-fired power plant in Utah from Flickr and photographer arbyreed)

The U.S. is on a trajectory to increase greenhouse gas emissions 4% (over 2005) by 2020, in a business-as-usual scenario that includes government measures in place as of March 31, 2009.

President Obama assured the world at Copenhagen that we would reduce our emissions 17% (over 2005) by 2020.

Clearly additional steps need to be taken to close the gap.

The projection, in the 2010 U.S. Climate Action Report to the UN, does not include the recent automobile standards set by the EPA.

By 2020, the report forecasts the GDP will have grown 40%.

While CO2 is forecast to grow just 1.5%, other greenhouse gases will grow more rapidly. Hydrofluorocarbons will more than double, the report says. Ironically, they are now being used as a replacement for ozone-depleting substances.

The relatively slow growth of CO2 will come because of more renewable energy and efficiency, the report says.

Where we were in 2009
The U.S. is the third most populous country in the world, having grown by 59 million since 1990, to 308 million. It also has the highest GDP in the world, up 70% since 1990, the report said.

We are the world’s largest producer and consumer of energy. Fossil fuels accounted for about 80% of all energy consumption 2005-2008. Petroleum was the single largest energy source, at 37.7% in 2008, though it was down from 41% in 2005.

Natural gas was second at 24.4%, with coal third at 22.4%. Nuclear accounted for 8.1%, conventional hydropower 2% and all other renewables 3%, according to the report.

In transportation, the highway share of passenger miles (in 2006, the latest figures available), was 89% of the total. Airlines carried about 10% and mass transit and rail only 1%.

Government policies and actions that were figured into the projection included $90 billion in stimulus money from ARRA, federal agency actions to reduce their GHG, and actions taken by states and cities.

Shale gas: energy game changer or pollution risk?

(Photo of hydraulic shale gas drilling from Flickr and photographer Melissa Peffs)

Shale gas is plentiful in the United States, and apparently all over the world. So the recent hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) and horizontal drilling that’s made it accessible and cheap could change not only the balance of energy sources but also geopolitical relationships – because most countries have it and could drastically reduce imports.

On the other hand, the process involves blasting shale rock with water, sand and chemicals like benzene, which some say is getting into the water table and contaminating it.

Shale gas was the talk of the CERAWeek forum in Houston last week. Now that it can be extracted from shale, natural gas reserves in the U.S. are sufficient to supply all our power for 100 years. It was called a “game changer” and an IHS CERA rep predicted the use of gas for power could nearly double by 2035. Three large reserves here are Marcellus in Pa., Barnett in Texas and Haynesville in La.

Companies that didn’t get in on the shale gas action here are rapidly looking for opportunities in Europe.
• Exxon Mobile is exploring in Germany and Poland.
• Chevron, Marathon and ConocoPhillips are also looking at Poland.
• Royal Dutch drilled its first well in Sweden and is looking in Ukraine.
• Paris-based Total is exploring in France and Denmark.
And there are others.

Natural gas emits about half the CO2 of coal, so many see it as a good bridge to renewable energy.

But there are concerns, serious ones.

There have been complaints of groundwater pollution. Investigations by the Ground Water Protection Council, an association of state regulators, has so far been unable to tie groundwater contamination directly to fracturing. But broken pipes and improper disposal of wastewater have caused problems, which suggests the need for closer monitoring.

GWPC has contracted with the Department of Energy to come up with a risk assessment of hydraulic fracturing. They also asked Congress, other federal agencies and state regulators to work with them to identify risks. The EPA will also conduct a study.

Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, Reuters, NPR

Will Kerry-Graham pact weaken climate bill?

(Photo of Capitol lost in smoke from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action)

Is the Kerry-Graham alliance a “game changer” in the hunt for 60 votes to pass a climate bill, or does it mean a watered-down bill that will have little impact on climate change?

In case you missed it, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a New York Times op-ed piece this week, touted cap-and-trade along with more nuclear power, offshore drilling and “low-carbon coal,” as if there is such a thing.

I know we may have to toss a bone to the fence-sitters to get anything passed, but do we have to give them the whole cow?

I’m conflicted about nuclear power in the climate change debate. The fact that I’ve lived with it uneventfully in Illinois for decades may have something to do with it. But mainly, it doesn’t emit CO2. So I see it as the lesser of evils, compared with fossil fuels.

I know there are fearsome environmental concerns. But so are there with coal (ash, air and water pollutants, mountain-top removal) and with off-shore drilling (spills endangering coasts and wildlife). And sequestered CO2 from coal, if it’s feasible, has the risk of bubbling up and killing people.

Natural gas isn’t half bad (literally – it produces 50% of the CO2 in coal) and so is preferable among the fossil fuels.

Future is solar and wind
But we must keep our eye on the future, which is wind and solar (and things not yet in play). We need to get there as quickly as possible.

Nuclear should not be classified as a “renewable energy” as some moderates Dems want, and included in a renewable electricity standard (RES). If the final bill tosses a bone to the oil patch and coal interests to get passed, it should be insignificant compared with curbs on GHG, efficiency and incentives for true renewable energy.

Why do we need more oil anyway, if demand in the industrialize world peaked 4 years ago, as a research report revealed this week? The oil companies want to sell it to developing countries where the need is growing. But that means the U.S. public won’t benefit, just the multinational oil firms. Besides, Boxer notes, oil companies have leases they aren’t even using.

And lest we forget, a 2006 law already expanded drilling off 4 gulf states.

Hearings to begin
Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, begins hearings Oct. 27 on the Kerry-Boxer bill (not to be confused with the more conservative Kerry-Graham non-bill). That bill can probably pass out of committee with no drilling provision because it is heavily Democrat. We need to let Sen. Kerry know we much prefer Kerry-Boxer. He seems to have abandoned it already.

One bone of contention will be the so-called “border tax” – a tariff on imported items made under less stringent environmental conditions. Several Midwest senators, led by Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), are intent on protecting the manufacturing base in their states, and jobs. That’s a bloc of about 10 votes, Brown says. He also wants help for manufacturers to retool, as the House bill has.

On the opposite side of the trade issue is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who says he won’t accept a bill with a border-tax.

This battle is far from over. It's just beginning.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&E New PM)

Today is Blog Action Day for climate change.

States see linked wind farms along East Coast

(Photo of offshore wind farm built in 2000 off Denmark from Flickr and United Nations photos.

I spent many days swimming and fishing on East Coast as I was growing up – summers in Rhode Island, occasional trips to Long Island or Fire Island, N.Y., and visits to grandparents in Florida. I still make frequent trips back to what feels like home. I love the Atlantic seaboard.

Fast-forward and envision a chain of interconnected offshore wind farms up and down the coast supplying much-needed power to the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. A source of electricity that doesn't release greenhouse gases.

I would much rather live with offshore wind turbines than offshore drilling platforms or belching coal plants. I saw the graceful, slow-turning turbines off Denmark a few years back – didn’t even know what they were, but they didn’t seem like an eyesore. And the vision is that these farms will be so far offshore you'll scarcely be able to see them, if at all.

Given the need for clean energy, I’ve been rooting for Cape Wind off Nantucket during it’s 8-year battle for approval, which is still going on. (Even Ted Kennedy said “not in my backyard.")

Wave of the future
So I was happy to see in September that some East Coast states, from Maine to Maryland, are joining together to develop a vibrant wind industry off their coastline. They have formed what they call the U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative.

One goal is to get R&D funding to develop floating turbines that can function in rough seas and deep water far off the coast – beyond the horizon. That could take time.

Meanwhile the states are motivated to cooperate rather than compete, and to come up with a network of windfarms connected on the ocean floor by a shared grid that goes to onshore substations near cities needing power.

Many reasons to do it
There are, of course, practical reasons for these states to work together:
• They import most of their power from the Midwest.
• The population is too dense to put windfarms on land.
• By working together they can reduce costs, cut through red tape and have an influential national voice.
• They can develop a strong offshore wind industry for the U.S., after ceding the onshore business to Europe years ago.
• They can, hopefully, speed things up so they can meet their self-imposed goals for renewable energy.
• The strongest, most reliable wind is offshore and the supply is endless.
(A curious difference about Europe’s offshore wind business versus ours. Their water is shallower so they’ve been able to adapt land towers for the sea, while we will need deeper water turbines if we want to place them some distance off the coast.)

Meeting last week
At the Clean Energy Summit in New Jersey last week, the states continued their talks. They will lobby together for an extension of the wind production tax credit beyond 2012. They will share public financing, technology and transmission lines. They'll work together to minimize environmental impact. (Yes there could be an impact on birds and marine life, but weigh it against the damage acidification from CO2 is causing oceans right now.) The states are even exploring the idea of making utilities buy a portion of their energy from offshore wind farms.

They said they will be able to save on costs and provide green jobs sooner than if each state proceeded on its own.

Many have already selected sites that meet state criteria. But the approval process involving the federal government is a complex one they hope to fast track, by agreeing among themselves.

Already underway
Several individual projects are already in the works:
• Cape Wind’s planned 130 turbines
• Delaware’s 450mw Bluewater Wind Co. project
• New Jersey’s work with several developers to produce 350mw
• Maine’s plan to test deep-water technology at 5 sites.
Rhode Island, Maryland and New York also are working on plans.

States have the right to put turbines up to 3 miles offshore, but the states want the federal government to begin issuing ocean floor leases for wind development beyond the 3-mile limit. Far better than issuing oil and gas leases.

(Sources: ClimateWire, usowc.org, NY Times.)

To follow us on Twitter everyday, click on the little bird on the right-hand side of the page.

Global warming update is ‘wake-up call’ to nations

(Photo of retreating Athabasca Glacier from Flickr and photographer Janet.Powell)



Climate is changing faster than forecast just two years ago by the authoritative IPCC, a new UN report revealed last week.

More CO2 is going into the atmosphere, glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster, oceans are getting more acidic, and perennial droughts are more common, the UN Environment Programme update said.

Global temperatures could rise 8 degrees Fahrenheit (above pre-industrial levels), based on pledges by countries so far to cut greenhouse gas emissions – double the temperature scientists in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said would be catastrophic. Some think tipping points will come in a matter of years or decades, rather than in a century, as earlier forecast.

Degree of damage
After assessing the latest peer-reviewed science, the report said:
• CO2 in the atmosphere is growing at 3.5% a year this decade, compared with 1.1% a year in the 1990s.
• At least half of the next 10 years should be warmer than the previous record in 1998.
• Glaciers and sea ice have melted since 2000 at twice the rate of the 1980s and ‘90s.
• Greenland ice in 2007 thawed 60% above the record melt in 1998.
• An ice-free September in the Arctic Ocean could come in 2030, not 2100 as earlier predicted.
• West Antarctica ice loss increased 60% from 1996-2006 and the Antarctic Peninsula thaw was up 140% the same decade. Closing of the ozone hole over Antarctic will likely accelerate warming there.
• Melting land ice and thermal expansion could raise sea levels 6 feet by century’s end, rather than the earlier predicted 1.5 feet.
• Marine ecosystems will turn over 60% by 2050 because of extinctions and invasive species.

Impact on treaty talks
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the new report a “wake-up call” for countries meeting in Copenhagen in December to try to reach accord on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

"Shying away from a major agreement in Copenhagen will probably be unforgivable, if you look back ... at this moment,” said UNEP executive director Achim Steiner.

Countries still disagree about the amount of GHG emissions industrialized and developing countries should cut and how much rich countries should help fund poor ones for adaptation and low-carbon economic development. Some European countries pledging 20% or more in cuts (below 1990 levels) by 2020 criticize the U.S., which is responsible for the most existing atmospheric CO2, for doing too little. The House-passed climate bill targets a 17% reduction (from 2005 levels) by 2020 (that’s about 4% below 1990) and the Senate is thought to be looking at reducing that number. That’s pretty pathetic.

As UNEP report contributor Robert Correl put it: Emissions are accelerating. “We’re not going in the right direction.”


To download the report go to www.unep.org/compendium2009

(Sources: Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, UNEP.com, AP.)

Climate skeptics misread new global warming study

(Image from Flickr and photographer azrainman)

Oboy. The climate skeptics are having a field day with two studies released last week that suggest scientists don’t know all the factors involved in global warming. The contrarian blogospere is especially excited about research, published in Nature Geoscience, that concluded carbon dioxide only accounted for half of the extreme warming that occurred 55 million years ago. The sceptics’ conclusion? Science models showing warming related to CO2 are all wet. Ergo, we can stop worrying about throwing up all that greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels.

That’s not the way the researchers saw it.

About 55 million years ago, they found, the Earth’s temperature rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius (9 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit) over a period of about 10,000 years. (If you're a Creationist, I guess you can stop reading here.) Based on seabed borings, scientists from Rice University, the University of Hawaii and U Cal Santa Barbara said things were already pretty hot when it all started (there was no surface ice) and they speculate some event, like methane deposits bubbling up from warm seabeds, caused a 70% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over 10,000 years. (Most hydrate methane turns into CO2.)

If only half the temperature increase can be explained by carbon dioxide release, what caused the rest of it? No one's sure but authors of the study said it could involve feedback loops. And they say the unexplained causes don't mean we can stop worrying about climate change. Rather, future global warming could be worse than we thought, because feedback loops caused by melting tundra, changing ocean currents, and water absorbing more sunlight than ice may have caused more warming then than today’s models would explain. (BTW, the UN’s IPPC report on future climate change left out feedback loops because we don’t understand them well enough, though they realized the melting of Greenland, for example, could have a profound effect.)

Forecasts likely underestimate warming
In commentary published along with the study, scientist David Beerling of Sheffield University, UK, said climate forecasts “could be severely underestimating the extent of the problem that lies in store for humanity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.”

An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees the study suggests warming is potentially worse than previously believed.

So don’t let anyone tell you this study throws the global warming theory out the window. More likely we don’t know the half of it.

Looking at warming on a scale we can relate to, say the lifetime of our grandchildren, predictions of catastrophic warming in this century still hold – and may be a lot worse than forecast.

Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the atmosphere has grown from 280 parts per million to 390 ppm or about 40%. C02 in the atmosphere could grow more than 70% in just a century (not 10,000 years) this time, one study author said.

Sunspots and flares
Another theory for changing temperatures on Earth has been the influence of activity on the sun. A second newly published study, in the Journal of Science, links the two together for the first time, but concludes the cyclical activity is similar to that of El Niño and La Niña, in warming the Pacific, but has only about half as much impact on the temperature as El Niño. The differences in the 11-year cycles are “very small,” relative to the sun’s total energy and are short-term cyclical rather than a long-term trend. The study was done by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

(Sources: Reuters PlanetArk, Reuters blog, Science Daily, Nature Geoscience, Union of Concerned Scientists, ClimateWire)

Scientists study worms' impact on climate change

(Photo of worms from Flickr and photographer Ben McLeod)

News Update: If someone criticizes the National Science Foundation for giving a grant to study earthworms, don’t believe it’s frivolous. Worms in forests may have a big impact on the ability of forest soil to store CO2 – but it’s not yet certain whether that impact is good or bad. Worms, which are not native to the U.S. and came with the first settlers, eat the leaves and dead plants on forest floors. But research into whether they release CO2 into the atmosphere or sequester it in the soil is conflicting. As a result their impact is not included in climate models, though it could be profound. Forest soil stores almost twice as much carbon as the trees themselves, according to the U.S. Forest Service. New research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research suggests the impact may be positive. The NSF grant will go to Purdue, Johns Hopkins and the Smithsonian Environment Research Center. (Source: ClimateWire)

Worldwide emissions of CO2 up 3% in past year

(Photo of a Montana power plant from Flickr and photographer ambimb)

News Update: Carbon dioxide emissions, a prime driver of global warming, grew 3% in 2007. The increase exceeded forecasts by international scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report 2 years ago and suggested a trend that could result in the worst-case scenario for climate change put forth by IPPC, which predicted a temperature rise of 4 to 11 degrees F by 2100. While 3% doesn’t sound like a lot, consider what will happen if that rate of increase persists for 10 or 20 years. China led the growth last year, providing more than half the increase. The U.S. was second, with a 2% increase, after emissions declined the previous year. Several industrial countries cut their emissions in 2007. Since 1992, world emissions have grown 38%, though the Kyoto Protocol called for a cut of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. “If we’re going to do something [about the rate of growth] it’s going to have to be different than what we’re doing,” said Gregg Marland, a senior Department of Energy scientist. (Sources: Greenwire, thedailygreen.com, AP)

Is natural gas the right solution to getting off oil? See EarthlingAngst's answer to Pickens' plan

(Photo of metro bus in Washington, D.C., running on natural gas from Flickr and photographer Kathy Doucette)

Weekly Angst: You’ve no doubt heard a lot about natural gas lately. There’s a rush to drill in shale and T. Boone Pickens’ much publicized plan recommends wind energy to power 20% of electricity plants, freeing up the natural gas that runs them and using that gas to replace some gasoline. His goal is to cut oil imports by a third in 10 years (and to make some money in the process). Sounds good, but it's not the answer to global warming.

Natural gas does have several advantages, as Pickens points out:
* It’s plentiful
* It’s cheaper than gasoline
* It’s cleaner than oil or coal
* And it’s American.

Natural gas now powers 20% of the nation’s electricity. It’s also used for cooking, heating and the chemical industry. And some motor vehicles are beginning to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel.

It’s plentiful
Natural gas production peaked here in 1973. Reserves began to dry up in the ‘90s, and production declined until 2005. By then new technology allowed horizontal drilling into shale, and there are plentiful shale gas reserves in 33 states. Some reports say there are enough in North America to last a century.

A rush to drill has ensued. Pennsylvania, for example, is on its way to issuing 7,000 gas and oil drilling permits this year. Louisiana just had a record natural gas lease sale of $93.8 million. More than 4,400 miles of gas pipeline have been laid in the U.S. this year and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin just signed a bill to award TransCanada Corp. a license to build and operate a gas pipeline to run from the North Slope to a hub in Canada. Most of the reserves on the North Slope are leased by BP, Exxon and ConocoPhillips. So the oil companies are hedging their bets with gas.

Price encourages drilling but it’s cheap for autos
Another incentive to drill was the rising price. In 1999 natural gas was less than $2/thousand cubic feet. This summer it hit $13 before a sharp decline. Yet the end product, for automobiles, is much cheaper than gasoline derived from oil. In Utah, where compressed natural gas is plentiful and there is an infrastructure of filling stations, people with cars converted for CNG are paying less than $1 a gallon. To see prices and where CNG pumps are, go to cngprices.com.)

It emits less CO2
Natural gas emits 30% less carbon dioxide than gasoline, 23% less than diesel and 50% less than coal. It’s also more efficient than coal for power plants, as it loses less energy in the process.

It’s local
Nearly all (98%) of the natural gas used in the U.S. comes from North America. Very little needs to be imported, as long as supply here can keep up with demand.

The arguments against natural gas
Although natural gas is cleaner than oil and coal, it still emits 70% of the CO2 gasoline does and half what coal does. Pickens' plan, which shifts gas over to replace some oil but leaves most power plants running on coal is not going to get us to the needed reduction of greenhouse gases. And too much focus on natural gas will only delay progress in that direction.

Pickens touts natural gas as a “temporary” solution, a transition until everyone can drive electric cars in what he sees as 20-30 years. Well we're going to be driving plug-in cars way before that unless, of course, subsidies and infrastructure send auto companies in the direction of CNG instead of electric cars. And then we'll just be replacing oil with another -- though somewhat cleaner -- fossil fuel.

Some environmental leaders endorse Pickens' plan, in large part because it pushes a huge increase in wind power, from less than 2% to 20% in a decade. With "drill, baby, drill" ringing in our ears, that sounds like a pretty good program. Until you stop and think how close it will get us to our goal of stopping global warming. Not very. Not very at all.

EarthlingAngst’s plan
Pickens’ plan says nothing about solar energy, which is abundant in the West, or wave power or geothermal energy. Why not aim for 20% solar in 10 years as well? And instead of replacing natural gas, let wind, solar and geothermal replace the dirtier coal in producing electricity, and use cellulosic ethanol and electric cars or plug-in hybrids for transportation – and more mass transit. Also put a serious focus on efficiency. We waste as much energy as we use. Then perhaps we really could put a dent in both oil and coal in 10 years.

What a tragedy we have wasted so many crucial years arguing about this stuff. We need to take giant steps, not baby steps, to shift away from fossil fuels (not just foreign oil) to renewable energy sources, and we need an administration and Congress that realizes that.

Take action
Meanwhile, you can call your Senators and Congressman (212-224-3121) Tuesday during National Call-in Day and tell them to vote for renewable energy, green jobs and efficiency, not for more drilling. That’s the way to get more energy more quickly and help the economy and planet as well.
(Sources: ClimateWire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Greenwire, pickensplan.com, PlanetArk, American Gas Assn., New York Times)

Undisturbed forests store more carbon than logging plantations to help fight global warming

(Photo of old growth eucalyptus tree from Flickr and photographer Tony from Sidney)

News Update 1: A new Australian study says natural forests, with their taller trees and larger canopies, store 60% more carbon than plantation, or industrial, forests. They also store more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in its 2007 report. Researchers at Australian National University found that in addition to growing larger, untouched trees grew older and stored carbon longer than trees cut down on a rotating basis. Biomass and soil store about 3 times as much carbon as that in the atmosphere, the report said, and 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere came from past deforestation, while 18% of annual carbon emissions now are from deforestation. (Source: Reuters)

Soot’s contribution to climate change bigger than reported last year by IPCC

(Photo of coal plant emissions from Flickr and and photographer hAdamsky)

News Update 3: A new study from Texas A&M suggest that soot, once it reaches the atmosphere, combines with other chemicals, especially sulfuric acid from power plants, and then inhibits the formation of clouds. It also helps form a brown haze that acts as insulation and keeps temperatures warm at night. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, said the interference with cloud formation could mean as much as 20% less rain in Houston, Texas. This study follows one in March, from California and Iowa scientists, that said soot could be the second only to CO2 as a contributor to global warming and adds 4 times as much as reported last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Sources: Greenwire, Houston Chronicle

We’ve used up all the slack time to avoid global warming tipping point -- Hansen

(Night photo of coal-fired power plant in Ohio from Flickr and and photographer Daniel Shea

Washington Report: NASA scientist James Hansen, who first warned Congress about global warming exactly 20 years ago, testified Monday a new administration and Congress must make a “transformational” energy change next year or be plunged into catastrophic, unstoppable climate change.

The main points of his statement, published in advance in The Guardian in England:
• CO2 in the atmosphere must be reduced and kept below 350 parts per million to avoid climate change disaster (it is now at 385 ppm and the Lieberman-Warner bill targeted 450).
• The first requirement is to halt use of coal unless the CO2 is captured and stored. He called for a moratorium on new plants that don’t do that.
• A price on emissions is essential. A carbon tax, with all the money going back to the public in the form of a “dividend,” would be best, he said, with a full share to every adult and half-share to children.
• Fossil fuel CEOs have known about the damage CO2 was doing, but like the tobacco companies, encouraged doubt about a link to global warming. “In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
• The next President must make a low-loss electricity grid a priority, so renewable energy can replace fossil fuels for power generation.
• Fossil fuel interests must be blocked from squeezing every last drop of oil from public lands, offshore and wilderness areas. It will only delay the real change that is needed to avoid a tipping point.

The tipping point has already been reached in the Arctic, Hansen said, and regardless of new emissions, summer sea ice will disappear. The risk now is passing a tipping point in West Antarctica and Greenland, which will rise the seas if they melt. Without a big change, he predicted a sea level increase of 2 meters (6 feet) by century’s end, which would bring constantly unstable shorelines and hundreds of millions of refugees.

Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Congress June 23, 1988, that the world was warming, that the cause was man-made, and that it would lead to erratic weather with floods, droughts and wildfires. Some call him a prophet and some have said he is “nuts.”

This week Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), R-Okla., said, "Hansen, Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it."

Hansen has suggested he might campaign against some of the obstructionists in Congress. Inhofe is facing a challenge this year from Democrat Andrew Rice in Oklahoma.

(Sources: The Guardian, ClimateWire,
EnvironmentalLeader.com, Associated Press)

Methane, a greenhouse gas, rises ‘sharply’ for the first time in a decade; CO2 is up too

(Photo of Arctic marshes and tundra from Flickr and photographer Royal Olive/G. Oliviera)

News Update: Methane in the atmosphere rose last year for the first time since 1998, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors such things. Methane is a concern because it’s 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas, though there’s much less of it in the atmosphere. The increase last year was 27 million tons. NOAA speculated that it’s probably coming from the economic boom in Asia and from wetlands uncovered by melting ice in the Arctic and also in the tropics. The main worry about methane is that thawing permafrost in the Arctic will release huge amounts of it. NOAA also announced that CO2 rose 2.4 parts per million last year, to 385 ppm. That compares with 280 until the mid-19th century. A safe level is between 350-450 ppm, depending on who you ask. In the ’60s the annual increase was 1 ppm, in the ‘80s 1.5 ppm, and since 2000 about 2 ppm each year. So last year’s jump may show it’s going to another level. CO2, we know, comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. For more, and a chart of recent annual CO2 growth, see Science Daily.)

North Atlantic absorbing only half the CO2 it did in the ‘90s, spurring global warming fears

(Photo of Atlantic Ocean from Flickr and Desi Zavatta Musolino)

News Update: The North Atlantic Ocean, one of the world’s major carbon sinks, is absorbing less carbon dioxide, a project funded by the European Union revealed last week. Three years of research show the ocean is sopping up only half as much CO2 as it did in the last decade. The amount fluctuates, however, so it’s hard to be sure to what extent the trend will continue. Oceans normally soak up about one-quarter of the carbon emissions released into the air, so a sharp decline would accelerate GHG in the atmosphere and global warming. Scientists speculate whether the cause is carbon over-saturation or shifting weather patterns. Whatever the cause, they said we can solve the problem by reducing GHG emissions 75%. “We must act now,” said project leader Christoph Heinze. (Source: PlanetArk.)

Cook County (Chicago) is No. 3 CO2 emitter and Chicago is No. 9 'greenest' city in U.S. -- Huh?

(Photo of Chicago from Flickr and photographer Giant Ginkgo)

Weekly Angst: How can Chicago/Cook County be one of the top carbon polluters in the country and at the same time Chicago be one of the “greenest” cities? That’s what two recent studies say.

The Vulcan Project, out of Purdue, released last week the names of the Top 20 carbon polluting counties, based on 3 years of research. The data are a bit old but Vulcan says it will soon update the findings.

Top 10 carbon emitters, in millions of tons in 2002
1. Harris County (Houston) 18.6
2. Los Angeles County (LA) 18.6
3. Cook (Chicago) 13.2
4. Cuyahoga (Cleveland) 11.1
5. Wayne (Detroit) 8.3
6. San Juan, N.M. 8.2
7. Santa Clare (San Jose) 8.0
8. Jefferson, Ala. (Birmingham) 8.0
9. Wilcox, Ala. (Camden) 7.6
10. E. Baton Rouge (Baton Rouge) 7.3

Suffolk County in metro New York City is 19th.

Houston is tops largely because of its oil and natural gas plants, and LA ranks high because of its freeways, the study says. The authors note blame cannot necessarily be attributed to the source because, for instance, New Mexico provides so much electricity to Southern California and Nevada. (Chicago, BTW, is home to the filthy Fisk and Crawford coal-fired plants that send their electricity out of state.)

The Vulcan Project, the work of researchers at Purdue, Colorado State and the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, is funded by NOAA and the Department of Energy. It will now be able to track progress in cutting carbon emissions in the U.S. and is starting work in Canada and Mexico in order to cover all North America.

To see a really cool YouTube video of where emissions come from, go to the Vulcan home page and scroll down. You can also read about #11-20.


The other study – Top 50 greenest cities
Popular Science released a list in February naming the 50 greenest cities, based on electricity, transportation, green buildings, recycling and views of residents. Their data came from the U.S. Census Bureau and National Geographic Society’s Green Guide.

Top 10 green cities
1. Portland, Ore.
2. San Francisco
3. Boston
4. Oakland, Calif.
5. Eugene, Ore.
6. Cambridge, Mass.
7. Berkeley, Calif.
8. Seattle
9. Chicago
10.Austin
Interesting, how many are university towns.

To see the other 40 and read how each city scored on a point system, go to the PopSci Web site.

So, what about Chicago?
Chicago won high points for its ample green space – 12,000 acres of parks and waterfront. It also got attention for being among the first cities to try cogeneration, a system that produces electricity and heat together so the heat doesn’t escape. It’s considered twice as efficient as separating the two. The Museum of Science and Industry uses the system, as do several other buildings. Chicago also got high marks for public transit. And a number of buildings have the highest, platinum energy efficiency rating from the U.S. Green Buildings Council LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program.

Clearly, the cities in each list were chosen on different criteria and cover different areas (city versus county). Which may explain how Chicago can be such a global warming dichotomy. Chicago has its out-dated Fisk and Crawford power plants spewing C02 and God knows what else, while a major portion of the city's power comes from nuclear. Its blue-bag recycling program is pure trash, and efforts to expand a new and much better cart system have been slowed by budget woes. But there are lots of parks, and the buses (though old) and EL pretty well cover the city, reducing the number of cars. Also there’s been a push to get buildings certified LEED.

Chicago, which prides itself on being a “green city,” is about to release its long-overdue Climate Action Plan. We’ll know a lot more about the true state of affairs when we see it.

(Sources: The Daily Green, Reuters, Vulcan Project, Popsci.com)

What planet is he on? Bush comes up with too little, too late in his plan for greenhouse gases

(Photo of President Bush from Flickr and talkradionews.)


Washington Round-up: President Bush today called for stopping the growth of greenhouse gases by the year 2025 and halting such growth in the power sector within 10-15 years.

As expected, his announcement set the goal way too late, “dangerously late,” as Senate Energy Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) put it.

Scientists say the world needs to cut GHG 15-20% by 2020 to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said if CO2 peaks in 2015 the earth’s temperature will rise 4.3 degrees above pre-industrial times. Bush would allow the growth to continue 10 years beyond that.

By comparison, the European Union has vowed to cut carbon emissions 20% (below 1990 levels) by 2020.

And the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill in the Senate asks for a 19% cut by 2020.

The Bush announcement shows he’s even more out of touch on this than we thought he was. His position is laughable. He also offered no specifics on how to reach the goal, other than new technologies and market solutions.

The president took the occasion to signal his intent to oppose the Lieberman-Warner bill. (Sources: Reuters, E&ENewsPM, ABCNews)

Low Carbon Diet book can help individuals join in fight against global warming

Weekly Angst: You know how hard it is to lose 5 or 10 pounds. How would you like to lose 2 1/2 tons? That’s the minimum amount we American energy hogs can lose in 30 days, with help from the Low Carbon Diet Book, to start doing our part to stop global warming.

The average American household is responsible for releasing 55,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Germans emit only half that amount (27000 lbs.) and Swedes just half that amount (13,000 lbs.), according to the book, written by David Gershon and published by the Empowerment Institute. In many U.S. communities, 85% of carbon emissions come from residences, so together we really can make a difference.

In fact, it’s going to be essential for Americans to cut their personal energy use, so why not start now? It can be contagious.

Support group
This diet offers support, like Weight Watchers, where 6-8 or more dieters can lose together and be accountable to one another.

It’s pretty easy. The workbook tells you how many pounds of CO2 you can lose for each of many actions. Then you can choose and check off what you’ve lost.

One ton (2,000 lbs.) can be lost, for example, by:
* replacing 4 light bulbs with CFLs (condensed fluorescents) – 600 lbs.
* washing your clothes in warm or cold water instead of hot – 600 lbs.
* reducing use of your dishwasher by 1 time a week by loading it up more – 175 lbs.
* turning your thermostat down 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer – 500 lbs.
* installing one low-flow shower head – 250 lbs.

Of course if you are reading this blog you may already be doing all these things. The book has many other actions you can take, like timing your showers to keep them under 5 minutes, unplugging electronics when they’re not in use, and eating one less meal of meat a week .

Giant steps
And if you’ve already been really good about taking all the easy steps, you can try some of these larger ones:
• Call your electric company and say you want to buy only green power. Many of them can accommodate you.
• Get an energy audit from your utility company to see where you can save and set up a 3-year plan to invest in energy-efficient appliances, new windows and improved insulation. (If your refrigerator is 10 years old, you can save 500 lbs. a year by getting a new one.)

Spread the word
Or you can get your workplace, your community or club or organization to join the cause. The Empowerment Institute says it has helped more than 250,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by 25%.

The Institute trains Low Carbon Diet leaders to facilitate small groups, or eco-teams, which meet in “cafes” 4 times over 4-6 weeks. You can sign up for the next free online training session on May 1, at 9 p.m. EST, and then start leading your own groups.

In Chicago, the Nuclear Energy Information Service is training leaders to run small groups, with a goal of 250,000 households by Dec. 31. The next training meeting they’ve scheduled is this Tuesday, April 8, at 3411 W. Diversey, #19, from 6:30-9 p.m. RSVP to neis@neis.org. I know leaders who are planning cafes in the Hyde Park and Rogers Park neighborhoods, and there are probably others in Chicago, as elsewhere around the country.

To buy the book and learn more about how you can participate, go to the Empowerment Institute Web site. Wherever you are, you can be part of the solution.


One household tip from The Daily Green is to avoid buying plastic shower curtains or liners – for a number of environmental and health reasons.

Dying to end your carbon footprint?

(Photo of St. Mary's Cemetery in DeKalb, Ill., from Flickr and photographer James Jordan.)

Worried about your carbon footprint? Think it will go away when you die? Think again. A cemetery in Australia has calculated the carbon emissions of cremation versus burial. Cremation releases more CO2 immediately – about 353 lbs. – while burial is only 86. But perpetual care of the grave site adds up over the years and can turn out to emit 10% more. So what’s a body to do? (excuse the pun) Well, the Centennial Park cemetery in Adelaide figures you can offset the whole thing by planting one tree. (Reuters)

California bill seeks carbon labeling to show life-cycle GHG emissions of products

(Photo of Simon enjoying his yogurt from Flickr and photographer rikhei)

Nutritional labeling of foods has helped people eat healthier – well, some people. Now get ready for carbon labeling on your yogurt and soft drinks. Carbon labeling, showing how much greenhouse gas was emitted by producing the product, not only will let consumers buy ‘greener’ but will make manufacturers more aware of cutting carbon emissions. The UK is already doing this. Now comes a bill in the California legislature that calls for voluntary CO2 labeling as a first step toward what we may all see on most products in the next decade. In Britain, there are labels on everything from yogurt to soft drinks to fast-food snacks to diapers. Cadbury Schweppes and Coca Cola have acknowledged it makes them think more about their carbon footprint. An organization called Carbon Label California is pushing the concept. (ClimateWire 3/13)