Home Star rebate plan OK'd by House panel

(Photo of energy-efficiency retrofit from Flickr and the Center for Neighborhood Technology)

Home Star, a residential energy-efficiency rebate program, was approved Wednesday by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.

The program, touted by the Obama Administration, would give 50% rebates of up to $1,500 for retrofitting homes to make them more energy-efficient. The rebates would come to consumers through the contractors doing the work. For an entire home upgrade, the rebate could be as much as $3,000.

Backed by the National Association for Manufacturers, the “Cash for Caulkers” bill is promoted as creating jobs and saving energy and therefore money and carbon emissions.

Democrats capped the bill at $6 billion, while Republicans said $1 billion was enough.

A similar bill is making its way through the Senate.

A related bill, Building Star, would provide rebates of up to 30% for commercial buildings.

For more on the Home Star program, see the White House Web site.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Rare earth minerals new reason to worry about China: It's hording supply needed for clean energy

Never heard of REM? You will. Rare earth minerals are 17 different metals, usually found together, that are needed to make clean energy products as diverse as electric car batteries, wind turbines and condensed fluorescent lightbulbs.

China has half the world’s reserves but is steadily slowing exports to meet it’s own increasing needs. We have been importing 90% of what we use from them. But by 2013 China may be using all its REM itself.

A Congressional subcommittee heard last week that we need to come up with a solution to that problem in the next two years or we won’t be able to compete.

The Department of Energy announced last Wednesday it will devise a strategy to diversify the supply line, finds substitutes and recycle the metals.

Only one U.S. company, Molycorp, is mining the metals right now. (BTW, China tried unsuccessfully to buy Molycorp’s parent company, Unocal.) Molycorp was denied a DOE loan guarantee to expand and asked Congress last week for help.

Reserves also exist in Canada, Australia, India and Russia. But these metals are expensive and difficult to mine.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM)

Enviro groups praise Kerry-Lieberman-Graham; but energy standard may include non-renewables

(Photo of nuclear plant from Flickr and photographers iluvcocacola/Bill and Vicki Tracey)


Twenty environmental groups praised the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Senate climate bill Friday, despite the fact that it is business-friendly.

Meanwhile issues like a renewable energy standard, offshore-drilling revenue sharing, free permits for power plants, and pre-emption of EPA and states’ programs are still being discussed and resolved by the bill’s three authors.

Saying they are “encouraged by the progress” of the bill, which curbs emissions by 17% in 2020 and 80% in 2050, were the Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment America, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Blue Green Alliance, Center for American Progress Action fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Tribal Environmental Council, Environment Northeast, National Audubon Society, Interfaith Power and Light, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, Wilderness Society, Climate Solutions and Environmental Law and Policy Center.

In an effort to avoid industry’s heavy lobbying against the bill and draw bi-partisan support, the authors made major concessions on domestic oil and gas drilling, help for nuclear power, and support for “clean coal.” It has been positioned as a jobs and anti-pollution bill that reduces dependence on foreign oil.

Unresolved issues
With plans to show the bill to other Senators as early as tomorrow, the trio has been working to finalize several matters.

One involves state revenue sharing of offshore oil royalties. To give an incentive for state approval, which is needed to drill off their coastlines – even in federal waters – there is a proposal to give states 25% of what the federal government stands to gain. Another 10% would go in a Land and Water Conservation Fund. It remains to be seen if the west coast of Florida, the only area off-limits to offshore drilling, will have a change of status.

Another issue still unresolved is whether a renewable energy standard will be morphed into a “clean energy” standard, to include one or more of the following: nuclear power, which is greenhouse-gas-free but not renewable (big problem); natural gas (which has about half the emissions of coal); and coal plants that use carbon capture and storage. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) has floated a plan with a higher standard than last year’s Energy Committee bill (20% in 2020, rather than 15%), but it is a clean – not renewable – energy standard. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) clearly favors adding nuclear.

It also appears that power plants, the first to be affected by the bill, would get free pollution permits to start, in what now may be back to a cap-and-trade, or at least cap-and-dividend, system. And they would be able to use offsets, to protect forests and land here and abroad, to meet their quota. Power plants emit about 40% of all GHG.

Finally, the bill has a controversial section that takes aim at the EPA and states, pre-empting EPA regulation of GHG emissions and of hydraulic fracturing used to get natural gas out of shale. It will also override states’ and regions’ cap-and-trade plans. Some from states that are out front on climate change object, saying every level of government needs to be involved in the fight against climate change.

For those wanting to read more on the work-in-progress, a post on Grist and Wonk Room compares the current draft with Obama’s proposal and the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House last summer.

Also, scroll down to see Earthling Angst posts over the past couple of weeks as this bill was fine-tuned after meetings with all sides.

(Sources: Reuters, E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM, grist.org)

29 governors ask feds to help increase wind power

(Photo of wind turbine from Flickr and photographer Caveman/Chuck Coker.)


Governors of more than half the states have recognized the potential of wind as a source of power.

As members of the Governors' Wind Energy Coalition , they are asking Congress and the Obama Administration for a national renewable energy standard (RES) and improved electrical grid that will enable wind to provide 20% of our power by 2030. Wind now makes up just 2%.

Among their asks are wind tax credits to be extended 5 years and $500 million to be allocated to research on offshore wind.

Is your governor in this association?

Read the group’s recommendations and see the list of members at the end.

(Sources: Environmental News Service and E&E News PM)

Is your state for or against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act?

States have split pretty evenly on one side or the other of a suit to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Seventeen states are suing to stop the EPA. Another 18 plus New York City are intervening on behalf of the agency. Friday, March 19, was the last day states could become part of the suit, consolidated by the court into Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v EPA.

Alabama, Texas and Virginia filed suits against EPA last month. Now Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have joined in, along with 22 industry associations.

On the other side, backing EPA, are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They are joined by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Southern Environmental Law Center .

The petitioners are asking for a review of the EPA’s “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases harm people’s health and welfare. The finding will result in regulations now being finalized.

The U.S. Supreme Court found in 2007 that the EPA has authority to make such a finding and regulate GHG. This suit is before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

(Sources: Greenwire)

New climate bill would pre-empt EPA and states; authors meet with industry opposition

(Photo of Texas oil rig from Flickr and photographer K. Sawyer)

The Kerry-Lieberman-Graham climate bill would pre-empt EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as state climate laws.

Those are a couple of the details that leaked out of a meeting yesterday with major industry opponents of past climate legislation.

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth behind closed doors, to share details of their work-in-progress. They did so in an effort to head off multi-million-dollar ad campaigns against their bill by the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other members of the Alliance.

Other details of the bill emerging from the meeting:

• Greenhouse gas curbs across multiple sectors would aim at a 17% reduction by 2020 and 80% by mid-century. These are from a base of 2005 levels, not 1990, which Europeans and other Kyoto signers use as their base. (FYI -- U.S. emissions in 2008 were 13.6% higher than 1990.)
• The curbs would apply to plants emitting 25,000 or more tons of GHG a year.
• A “price collar” would limit a rise in the cost of carbon allowances.
• There would be new nationwide standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
• The bill would include titles, or sections, on oil refining, farms, consumer refunds, clean energy innovation, coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, and energy independence.

The trio also met with environmental groups to get their feedback.

It’s more than a little disturbing that the industries that worked with the Bush-Cheney Administration on the oil-friendly Energy Policy Act of 2005 got a special introduction to this proposal and chance to make comments and requests. (The oil companies asked that revenue from permits go to highway construction – gotta keep those automobiles running!) More likely it will flow back to consumers to pay higher energy costs and also to clean energy R&D.

The landscape is different today and industry realizes things are going to change one way or another. The EPA now has power to regulate carbon, and states are increasingly passing their own climate bills.

The three Senators expect to reveal an outline of their bill to a larger group of Senators next Tuesday, then send the information to the EPA and Congressional Budget Office for analysis. A final proposal will likely be introduced to the Senate in mid-April, Kerry said.

Meanwhile, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Byron Dorgan (R-N.D.) have pitched Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on an energy-only bill that had bi-partisan support in the Senate Energy Committee last spring. The two might be blended together.

See earlier Earthling Angst posts on that bill and the ongoing effort by Kerry-Lieberman-Graham .

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Greenwire, climateprogress.org)

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

Senate climate bill likely to include off-shore drilling, delayed CO2 curbs for some industries

(Remnants of steel plant with Three Mile Island nuclear plant behind it from Flickr and photographer Scooter Flix/Scott Shatto)


What form will the bi-partisan Senate climate bill finally take? New developments in the past week suggest the following:
• Industry, particularly trade-sensitive industry in the Rust Belt, may get a long reprieve.
• Off-shore drilling is likely to be part of the mix, probably with revenue sharing for the adjacent states.
• Nuclear power and natural gas could be part of a “clean energy standard” that would replace the current renewable energy standard RES).

These are three of the “asks” from major blocs of Senators, some of whose votes will be needed to get to 60.

In an analysis of the 30 or so fence-sitters, E&E News, the subscription wire service, has looked at the various blocs and their demands. Some are overlapping. The idea will be to swing some of these blocs, or at least some members, onto the yes-vote side of the fence to reach 60. They are now at 41.

The coal bloc (about 20 Senators) wants the cap on emissions by 2020 to be less than the 17% in the House bill and what was promised by the President at Copenhagen. They also want billions to develop “clean coal” technology.

The nuclear bloc (about 18) is looking for tax incentives and loan guarantees that they are likely to get. They also would like nuclear to be included in a “clean energy standard.”

The industrial bloc (13) is worried about job loss for energy-intensive industries with fierce international competition, such as steel, cement and glass. They want short-term transitional assistance and trade barriers for countries that don’t have similar curbs on CO2 emissions. (No point sending the jobs and CO2 to China, they say.)

The gas and oil bloc (13) wants more offshore drilling with revenue sharing for states. On the other side are some states, mostly East Coast, that don’t want drilling off their coasts (NIMBY).

Finally there are about 12 sector-specific advocates who want their industry phased in later, with utilities going first, which is likely to happen.

Meetings last week
President Obama met with 8 Democrats and 6 Republicans to hear them out for more than an hour last week.

Meanwhile, the triumverate of Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who are drafting the bill, met with the Big 3 opponents of climate legislation – the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Farm Bureau.

What the three Senators will emerge with in the next couple of weeks (or maybe after spring break, Kerry admitted Friday) will be what Graham calls a jobs bill that emphasizes energy independence and reduces air pollution. He also said off-shore drilling is a must. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has asked a 10-year delay for trade-sensitive industries and Graham noted, “We need Levin.”

A few, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) want an energy-only bill, but the President was clear this should be a comprehensive climate bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) demand for drilling in ANWR has been rejected out of hand.

The three said earlier this bill is unlikely to embrace cap-and-trade.

Stay tuned.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM)

See Earthling Angst's daily tweets on Twitter by clicking on the blue bird at right.

Florida Keys face climate change now as sea rises

(Photo of beach in Florida Keys from Flickr and photographer Vladeb/Brian Garrett)

The Florida Keys are already feeling the damage from rising seas and climate change. The low-lying island chain is being eroded, flooded and losing unique wildlife – and that’s not just from hurricanes. The seas have risen 9 inches in the past century.

I’ve seen the encroaching water close-up. We bought a condo on the ocean in Islamorada in the mid-1990s. And we sold it 10 years later, in large part because the water was lapping at our building, requiring a seawall to be built. Aside from several hurricanes in recent years that took out our dock, insurance costs had skyrocketed and we knew if our building ever was destroyed they’d have to rebuild further back and smaller, and some of us would be out of luck.

An article in the Christian Science Monitor last week talked about frequent flooding of streets, the death of foliage from salt water, and gradual disappearance of some animals needing fresh water – like the tiny Key deer. A study at the University of Miami said a best-case scenario would be the sea rising another 7 inches by 2100. Worst case was 55 inches.

That would just about wipe out everything. Most of the Keys are flat and little more than a block wide, with water on both sides.

Some efforts are underway to combat flooding streets – for example in Key West where they are putting in gravity wells at intersections. And there’s talk about raising some roads. But money is short and I can’t see that they’d ever be able to save this wonderful, beautiful spot if the water rose even 24 inches.

What’s happening in the Keys is starting to occur on other coastlines, where beach erosion is eating away at the shore.

Just a reminder that climate change legislation is about more than what the coal companies want and the politics of getting re-elected.

(Sources: Christian Science Monitor, ClimateWire)

EPA backs down on rules for large power-plant GHG emissions -- under pressure from Congress

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


Reactinging to pressure from some members of Congress, the EPA has backpedaled on its plan to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from large power plants and factories under the Clean Air Act this year.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that in order to allow time for Congress to pass a climate bill she would:
• Not require permitting in 2010 for large sources of greenhouse gases.
• Raise the limit for permitting next year to those emitting more than 75,000 tons, not the 25,000 planned. That amount might be lowered to 50,000 tons in 2012.
• Give small sources of emissions a reprieve until 2016.

The EPA and Department of Transportation would, however, proceed with plans to issue rules next month for autos and light trucks, to reach the Obama Administration’s goal of 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Why the change?
Easing the plans for restricting emissions from large coal-powered plants and other industrial sources came in response to a series of threats to the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG.

• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has prepared a resolution to veto the “endangerment” finding that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, a finding that followed a Supreme Court decision. Murkowski has 41 co-sponsors, including Dems Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) Murkowski needs 51 votes to pass the resolution and apparently doesn’t have them or would have introduced it by now. A companion resolution in the House, would be spearheaded by two Democrats, Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Collin Peterson (Minn.)

• Coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced a bill to delay EPA regulation of large power plants for two years. There is no indication, however, that Senate leadership will bring it up for hearing. W. Va. Reps. Nick Rahall and Alan Molihan, both Dems, as well as Rick Boucher (D-Va.), have a similar bill in the House but there’s no sign that is going anywhere either. But Rockefeller’s bill may have done its job to get concessions from the EPA and head off Murkowski’s more dangerous resolution.

Rockefeller’s bill would not challenge the EPA’s right to consider climate change under the Clean Air Act, as Murkowski’s resolution would. It would just postpone it for stationary sources (not vehicles).

Who’s lining up with whom
Murkowski’s supporters include the National Automobile Dealers Assn. and the American Public Power Assn.

She, by the way, has collected $800,000 in gas, oil and utility contributions, according to climateprogress.org.

Among those opposing her resolution are the American Lung Assn. and 12 public health organizations, including the American Pediatrics Assn., as well as 569 scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The head of construction trades for the AFL-CIO has written the White House and asked it to reconsider taking such strong action quickly against stationary sources because it would hurt jobs.

Lawsuit
Alabama and Texas have filed suit to stop the EPA. But 16 other states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, have asked to intervene on behalf of the EPA. Among them are some you might not expect – Arizona and Iowa.

EPA’s Jackson told Congress she, like the president, would like to see Congress pass climate legislation as a better way to curb greenhouse gases. The House climate bill passed in June blocked EPA regulation, while the Senate bill that came out of the Environment Committee did not.

Now 13 Senators, led by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as well and the bi-partisan trio crafting a new Senate bill (Kerry, Lieberman and Graham), asking them not to take away the EPA’s ability to regulate GHG from coal plants under the Clean Air Act.


(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, ClimateWire, E&ENewsPM, climateprogress.org)

Carbon tax more acceptable than cap-and-trade?

(Photo of coal-burning plant near Kenosha, Wisc., from Flickr and photographer James Jordan )


Who'da thunk it? Cap-and-trade was the way to go the past few years because a carbon tax was politically impossible. Now, suddenly, that's turned on its head. A carbon tax -- or at least "a price on carbon" -- seems to have the best chance.

Climate legislation may not be dead after all, but cap-and-trade is. The odd triad – Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) – are preparing to release the main points of their “compromise” legislation to the Senate sometime this week or next -- and it doesn't include cap-and-trade.

They don’t have the 60 votes yet, haven’t even drafted the language yet, but are ready to work the crowd of uncertain senators and interested lobbyists to see if they can reach consensus.

President Obama says he’s willing to be flexible as long as the plan puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions and cuts them about 17% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, as he promised the rest of the world.

The three say their plan can do that.

Other important points:
• Three different mechanisms will be used for three different sectors.
• Power plants will go first and their emissions will be priced and capped and made more stringent over time.
• Industries, such as chemicals, cement and paper, will be able to wait several years, but will eventually be included.
• Motor fuel will have a price attached to carbon (that's right, a carbon tax) with at least some of the revenue going to transportation projects and helping auto companies becom more fuel-efficient.
• Nuclear power will be supported – Obama already took a step in that direction, announcing $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for two reactors in Georgia.
• R & D for carbon capture and sequestration will get support too.
• With emphasis on reducing dependence on foreign oil, plans for offshore drilling for oil and gas here are included.

Cap-and-trade a non-starter
The GOP has tagged cap-and-trade as “cap-and-tax” and has scared people into thinking energy costs will rise. The term is now political poison. Not to mention distrust of Wall Street and any trading mechanism.

What seems to be taking its place is “cap-and-dividend,” in which proceeds from a “price” on carbon (whatever form it takes) would go back to consumers to help them pay higher utility costs. The advantages are two:
• Voters won’t blame their Senators for sticking them with higher costs in a bum economy,
• Utilities will be able to raise prices to pay for the changes they have to make.

Can it pass?
It’s impossible to satisfy every politician, voter and interest group, but the triad is sure trying. Graham said even climate change skeptics can support this bill, which will provide jobs and reduce dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world. It's also a way for the GOP to appeal to young voters, he told Tom Friedman of the New York Times.

The three are running up against a serious time crunch in a Senate still preoccupied with health reform and jobs -- and an election that has incumbents very nervous. (Note that John McCain is very much absent from this effort by his two amigos.) And Graham suggested if the Dems pass health reform by reconciliation, all bets are off.

Once the bill's details are worked out, the EPA would need about a month to do its analysis, and other departments would have to weigh in. If it is in fact possible to get 60 votes, we still have a problem – similar to the one in health care.

The House has already passed a bill, HR 2454 (last June – did you forget about that?) and it is based on cap-and-trade. So, will the two chambers be able to reconcile their differences before election season heats up?

It seems like a tall order.

(Sources: Reuters, E&E Daily, PlanetArk , New York Times)

Freight train mess in Chicago gets stimulus help

(Photo of freight trains passing through Chicago from Flickr and photographer Kumar McMillan)


Believe it or not, a freight train can take as long to get through Chicago as it does to go on to the West Coast. This railroad hub is so congested, with its 40,000 rail cars passing through each day, that trains usually travel at 9 mph or less. They have been known to take 36 hours to get through the area.

So it was good news to hear last week that the U.S. Department of Transportation was giving a $100 million recovery grant to improve the situation.

The money will be used to upgrade traffic control systems, switches and signals, build a bridge and otherwise facilitate trains in moving through one of the world’s busiest hubs. Only Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai see more freight train traffic. And estimates say rail traffic could almost double here in 20 years.

The DOT money is expected to attract an additional $62 million from non-federal sources. (I hope that doesn’t mean the state, because we know what kind of fiscal shape it is in.)

CREATE
Back in 2003, following a 1999 winter storm that had trains backed up for 500 miles, a program called CREATE (Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency) was agreed to by the city, the state and the 6 railroad companies that go through Chicago. CREATE hasn’t been able to do much so far, for lack of money. So, thank you, President Obama and Ray LaHood (Transportation Secretary, who happens to be from Illinois.)

Most of the $1.5 billion in announced TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants went for rail and public transit rather than highways.

Chicago is not the only region to get a large grant. Two other freight corridors got similar amounts – one in Tennessee and Alabama, the other in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland. And there are many other small projects throughout the country.

More fuel-efficient
Freight train companies (if you’ve seen the recent ads) boast they can carry a ton of goods 436 miles on a gallon of gas. They also say by taking truck traffic off the road they can ease highway congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute says trains are 3 times as efficient as trucks.

Truckers argue they can move things faster and can go anywhere. Over the past 20 years freight has been moving from rail to trucks and planes. And trucking’s carbon footprint has grown.

Quebec and some European countries are subsidizing a move back from trucks to rail. And the White House has put a priority on rail – both passenger and freight.

The cost to complete all the CREATE projects planned for the Chicago area is estimated by DOT at about $3B, and last year it was running $2.6B short of its goal. The $162M won’t get them there, but it will be a start.

And it’s nice railroads are getting some respect.

Read more about the TIGER grants at DOT.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Medill Reports, U. S. Department of Transportation)

Provocative NASA study puts road traffic ahead of power plants as cause of climate change near-term

(Picture of auto traffic from Flickr and photographer Lynac)

A new study from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says tailpipe emissions will cause the most global warming over the next decade. Next comes heating homes by burning wood and cow dung in poor countries. Third is methane from cows.

Electric power is further down the list, though it will be the prime source of warming by century’s end, the study predicts. The provocative study, by a team led by NASA’s Nadine Unger, was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Policy implications
Does this mean we should turn away from fighting the coal industry and focus more on electric cars, high-speed rail and aid to third-world countries? Possibly. We may have a little more time than we thought to shut off coal – as far as global warming is concerned.

But this is just one study. It will need to be confirmed by others.

And the reason behind the findings is troubling. It all has to do with the release of aerosols that block the incoming sunlight and have a temporary cooling effect. Tailpipe emissions don’t have much of those, while coal-fired plants do. Some aerosols, such as sulfates and organic carbon, have a very short-term cooling effect (they are rained down in just a few days), while greenhouse gases stay aloft for decades.

Of course this is a double-edged sword. Aerosols have a known harmful effect on human health and on the environment. That’s why industrialized countries have been phasing them out.

A choice we don’t want to make
Do we have to choose between climate change and our health? Unger says, “no,” that we need to phase out unhealthy aerosols, but that an immediate focus on transportation will give us the biggest bang for our buck in the next decade.

A sound way to proceed is by attacking all sources – tailpipes, burning of wood and dung, cattle-produced methane AND power plants. If we can remove many of the sources of greenhouse gases, we won’t need unhealthy particles in the air to block out the sun.

To read about the study and see graphs go to NASA’s Web site.

See Q&A with Unger. (Caution: Don’t be biased by her picture. She’s a pretty blonde.)

If you want to read the study abstract.

(Sources: NASA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fastcompany.com)

High-speed rail chugging along with stimulus $$

(Photo of inside of high-speed train in UK from Flickr and photographer Jon Curnow)

Can the U.S. develop a viable high-speed train system that will lure people out of their cars and reduce air travel, thus cutting down on CO2 emissions?

High-speed rail is the transportation priority for President Obama, and it recently won $8 billion in stimulus funds plus $2.5B from Congress (the president asked for $1B.) Obama is seeking another billion in his 2011 fiscal year budget.

That’s only a drop in the bucket. Requests for stimulus funds exceeded $50B, and a nationwide high-speed rail system would cost an estimated $600B. But hopefully the initial allocations will prime the pump for more federal, state and private money in the future, so some of the projects can reach fruition. The stimulus money was spread over half the states and 40% of congressional districts. So many officials will now have an interest in adding money as time goes on.

Maybe we can approach the level of many European countries and Japan, though they have a huge head start because of our powerful auto and oil interests. China, which is investing heavily in rail, just launched a link between Zhengzhou and Xi’an, with a top speed of 217mph. Europe and Japan high-speed trains reach speeds of about 220mph.

Where the money went
The bulk of the stimulus money went to California, Florida and the Midwest:
• California got $2.3B for a planned line linking San Diego, LA and San Francisco.
• Florida received $1.25B for a Tampa-Orlando run.
• The Midwest got $2.2B for initial steps for a network linking Chicago with Detroit, Milwaukee and St. Louis. The goal is to make those cities reachable in the same time it would take to drive or fly.

The remaining $2B in stimulus was divided among 20 other states for planning and upgrades, including $112 million for the high-speed Northwest Corridor connecting N.Y., Washington and Boston.

The California and Florida lines aim for speeds up to 150mph, while the Midwest network would reach 110. Regular passenger trains now go up to about 80mph.

Trains emit much less CO2 than planes and cars, anywhere from 3 and 10 times less, depending on the type of train (electric is best) and other conditions, says French company UIC. About 80% of high-speed trains in Europe are electric.

Advocacy groups in the U.S. include the
Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Western High-Speed Rail Alliance, and the new U.S. Center for High-Speed Rail, which has set up a Web site for information sharing.

See map of corridors receiving stimulus money.

See earlier EarthlingAngst post explaining high-speed rail.

(Sources: ClimateWire, E&E TV, CNN, Greenwire, E&E Daily, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Federal Rail Administration)

It’s the moisture, stupid, not the temperature

(Photo of Capitol Building in last week's snowstorm from Flickr and photographer eped1999)

Heavy snowstorms in the East are causing quite a tizzy. Climate skeptics are loving it and spreading doubt about the validity of global warming. Especially in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) tweeted that “It’s going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”

And Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) daughter and grandchildren built an igloo on the National Mall, calling it “Al Gore’s new home.”

My, my, they certainly have it in for the former vice president.

But the truth is the heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic states are completely consistent with global warming.

1. The temperature is changing SLOWLY, folks. Only 1.4 degrees F in the past 100 years. That’s enough to change weather patterns, but not enough to feel.
2. Precipitation is not the same as temperature. More concentrated precipitation as the Earth warms was predicted by climate scientists. Whether it’s in the form of rain and floods or snow depends on if it’s above or below freezing. And the rain or snow tends to get dumped in some places while others stay too dry.
3. Heavy rains and snows are the result of more moisture in the air, which is caused by warming land and oceans. Water vapor in the air is up 4% since 1970.
4. The East and Upper Midwest were predicted to see see the most precip, while the South and West, which have suffered droughts, get less.

A study in 2004 said there had been a 14% increase in heavy rain or snowstorms in the past 100 years, including a significant increase in the winter in the Northeast. Another study in 2006 found a decline in precipitation in the lower Midwest, South and California, but an increase in the upper Midwest and East between 1901 and 2000.

The 2009 U.S. Climate Impact Report found “Cold season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent. There will also be an increase in lake-effect snows. The ice cover on the Great Lakes has decreased 8.4% per decade since 1973, which leads to more evaporation and heavier storms.

So don’t let people get away with saying unusually heavy snows, like those last week and in December, mean there’s no such thing as global warming. More likely they are caused at least in part by global warming and will get worse in the future if Congress sits on its hands and hopes the threat has gone away so they don’t have to stand up to the oil and coal lobbies.

(Special thanks to Climate Progress for its research and commentary on this topic. To read in more detail, go to climateprogress.org. For the U.S. Climate Impact Report see The U.S. Global Change Research Program.)

Obama needs credit for environmental successes

(Photo of Obama from Flickr and jmtimages)

Despite the failure so far to pass a climate bill in the Senate, or to help forge a final international agreement in Copenhagen, the Obama Administration has, without much fanfare, quietly reversed destructive Bush environmental policy and ramped up green jobs development as it sets a course for a cleaner energy future.

Carl Pope, outgoing executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Mercury News, “This is by far the best first year on the environment of any president in history.” In just one year, he said, the president reversed most of Bush’s anti-environment actions over eight years.

The League of Conservation Voters gave him a B+ for is first year.

Among the accomplishments::

Reversing Bush policies
Fuel efficiency: Instead of fighting California’s request to the EPA to let the state restrict tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (something many other states wanted too), Obama’s EPA granted permission and then the president announced new federal rules increasing fuel efficiency 40%, from the current average of 25 mph to 35 mph in 2016.

Regulating GHG: Bush avoided taking action on the Supreme Court decision giving the EPA power to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. This EPA is now finalizing a Big Polluter Rule, under which is would be able to restrict emissions from sources emitting more than 25,000 tons per year.

Oil and gas drilling: This Administration blocked Bush’s rule to open the California coast and 77 sites near Arches and Canyonlands national parks to drilling. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar also announced major reforms for oil and gas leasing on public lands.

Bisphenol: The Food & Drug Administration said bisphenol-A in plastics poses a significant danger to babies and young children.

Ozone: The EPA announced new health-based ozone standards.

Yellowstone: The Administration negated a Bush rule allowing more snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

Funding clean tech through ARRA
Green technologies will get a strong shot in the arm from stimulus funds, with an estimated $80 billion targeted for everything from weatherization and other efficiency measures to public transit and high speed trains to hybrid and electric cars to electrical grid improvements and renewable sources like wind and solar. Only $5B of that money has been released to date, with another $26B committed. The DOE says the delay was needed to establish rules about how the funds could be spent.

Obama is emphasizing the importance of creating jobs for the energies of the future, but the results will also to cut GHG emissions.

Additional actions
In the first year, the Administration also:
• Said it would catalog GHG emissions from large sources.
• Ordered that 500,000 federal buildings and 600,000 federal vehicles cut GHG emissions.
• Began developing standards for more efficient appliances.
• Required federal agencies to consider climate change in environmental reviews.
• Broadened guidelines for mass transit projects to receive federal funds.
• Signed into law a bill to create 2 million acres of new wilderness that bans logging, mining and new roads in federal forests and deserts in 9 states, including Joshua Tree and Sequoia national parks.

The president doesn’t get a lot of credit for all this – and more – because things were so bad in the Bush years, and the news focus has been on the economy and health care. But we are slowly moving forward despite Congress and the big lobbies. That’s why it is so important to defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Tell your senators to vote no.

(Sources: Sierra Club, mercurynews.com, Center for American Progress, White House blog)

BASIC nations meet to finalize GHG pledges as EU tries to regain climate leadership

(Photo of Chinese coal plant from Flickr and photographer ishmatt)

In preparation for the Jan. 31 deadline for countries to add GHG targets to the Copenhagen Accord, a new power bloc of four big developing countries, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (known as BASIC), will meet Jan. 25-28 in New Delhi to finalize their action plans and talk about how to get other developing countries to do the same.

Meanwhile the European Union meets this weekend in Spain to find a way to reassert its worldwide leadership on climate change.

The BASIC bloc was the one that met with President Obama behind closed doors at the end of COP15 and hammered out the deal that became the Copenhagen Accord. The EU, wanting a stronger agreement, felt marginalized.

Two follow-up UN meetings are planned, in Bonn this June and Mexico in November, to try to finish the business left undone in Copenhagen. The U.S. has indicated it may host the main polluting countries for discussions sometime soon. That could bring together BASIC and the EU.

Problems with the process
In the wake of the climate conference, variously called “chaotic,” “ugly,” and a “near disaster,” many are questioning the UN Framework’s ability to gather all parties and reach agreement on a follow-up treaty to Kyoto.

Copenhagen attracted far too many people (tens of thousands), critics say, and the appearance of 130 heads of state further complicated things. The conference was “too politically charged for the technocrats and way too technical for the politicians,” Ron Bradley, director of international climate change for the World Resources Institute, told E&E TV.

The U.S. role
In the United States, much rests on the Senate, which should match the House’s 17% cut by 2020 to meet Obama’s pledge at the conference. Obama got the Senators what they wanted wanted, a pledge from China and agreement to international review, but the Senate still seems unlikely to agree on cap-and-trade legislation before the next election the end of 2010.

It’s also unclear how the U.S. will come up with its share of the agreed-upon $100B annually for adaptation and mitigation in poor countries by 2020. Republicans aren’t happy about sending money elsewhere in a bad economy. Some money could be raised from private sources and some may have to be a diversion of other foreign aid funds, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton suggested recently.

Others countries’ pledges
Leading up to the Jan. 31 deadline to add some meat to the Accord with specific targets, Germany said it will go with its most ambitious plan of cutting 40% by 2020. The EU as a whole committed 20% but will talk about whether to go higher in an effort to re-assert its leadership. There is considerable disagreement among the union, which was a problem for them at Copenhagen.

China has committed to a 40-45% reduction in intensity and India to 20-25%.

South Africa pledged at COP15 to cut 34% intensity by 2020 and 42% by 2025. A new study says that will be difficult for the coal-dominated country to accomplish.

And Brazil just passed a law targeting a 39% cut by 2020, which amounts to a 20% reduction from 2005 levels.

Many countries are likely to miss the Jan. 31 deadline, according to Orbeo, a carbon-market consulting firm. Only about 50 of 194 have signed on so far. Both BASIC and the EU are planning to urge those who haven't done so to make their pledges.

Whether or not countries meet the deadline may well tell how serious they are about fighting climate change. And will help us gauge the success of Copenhagen.

(Sources: Bloomberg, PlanetArk, ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&ETV, London Guardian.)

How to talk about global warming when it's freezing and snowing outside

(Photo of January snowstorm from Flickr and Wobblymol/Loraine Davis)

The snow is piling up, the cold is harsh. So what does that say about global warming? The deniers say it means the Earth is cooling, not warming. Some of your family and friends may be having serious doubts, too, about whether the planet is really heating up. It’s hard to believe when it’s so darn cold outside.

Well, it is heating up. You can tell people that with confidence. We just finished the warmest decade on record. Arctic summer ice has melted at a record pace. Last year was among the 5 warmest years ever recorded.

We don’t always feel that warmth. It varies from place to place and much of the change is in the oceans.

We’re talking long-term, widespread trends here, not specific weeks or months or specific regions. Even more important – what people find hard to grasp – we’re talking miniscule changes. Fractions of degrees that add up.

Climate scientists are saying if the average world temperature rises more than 2 degrees Celsius (4.6 Fahrenheit) over what it was is pre-industrial times, we are in for cataclysmic climate change.

Some folks wouldn’t even be convinced of global warming if this year was 4.6 F above last year. They are looking for changes they can feel – and feel quickly – like a 10-degree difference for a whole season. If the summer averaged 90 instead of 80, they might believe.

It doesn’t work that way. It happens slowly and insidiously. We need to look, as scientists do, at the slow, long-term changes that are, for example, causing early spring run-off of mountain ice followed by drought; lack of freezing temperatures to kill off pine beetle infestations; and wildfires exploding because the dry season is longer.

Climate isn’t the same thing as weather. Weather can vary widely, and right now it is particularly cold in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, due in large part to something scientists call Arctic Oscillation. That – to put it very simply -- is when pressure pushes cold weather further south than usual. AO is extreme right now. Britain and much of Western Europe are feeling the brunt of it, as are China and Korea. At the same time, though, the west coast of Greenland is having warm rain and parts of Africa are unusually hot. Alaska and northern Canada are warmer than usual, too.

So, what the weather’s like in Montana or Buffalo in a given month doesn’t tell us what’s happening the world over. In fact a Nobel-prize-winning scientist at the University of Montana predicted this week that his state and others in the Rockies are looking at more short winters, more beetle infestations and more wildfires. Steve Running says that while Montana used to have 10-12 sub-zero days a year, now has just 3-4.

That’s what it’s about. A matter of degree. Not weather you can see and feel changing year to year. But trends that recorded data reveal. That’s why we need scientists. And why we need to look at the results of the cumulative changes.

Winter will still be with us, and it may seem just as severe. But it isn’t, and you’d better believe it.

(Sources: Dot Earth, Climate Progress , The Guardian, AP, Missoulian.

No new coal plants in 2009; reason to celebrate!

(Photo of defunct Seaholm power plant in Austin, Texas, being turned into civic center, from Flickr and photographer Craig Allen.)

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk, Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)

No new coal plants in 2009

No new coal plants last year! Reason to celebrate

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk,Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)