Who will sell clean energy to the rest of the world?

(Photo of photo cell production in Urumqi, China, from Flickr and Bert van Dijk

Clean energy is a major economic engine of the future, Barack Obama says. “The only question is: Which country will create these jobs and these industries? And I want that answer to be the United States of America.”

He really wants to curb global warming, but since a lot of people aren’t concerned about that, he’s making a big deal about “jobs” and “economy.” Right?

Only partially. It is a big deal and we're being dealt out. Asia is looking to take the lead in green tech, just as it did in automobiles. And we’d better watch out. As the oil and coal interests try to put the skids on change here, Asian countries are getting ready to clean our clock again. In 2008 China was the largest producer of photovoltaic (solar) cells and virtually all of them were sold abroad. With the global economic slump, main customers Spain, Germany and Japan have cut back orders, so now China is re-gearing to use the product itself – at least for now, until exports pick up again.

In the face of recession, some of Asia’s biggest economies are beginning to pour large amounts of stimulus money into solar, wind and other alternative energy sources. They know it’s where the future growth is.

China, India, South Korea and Taiwan are planning to spend hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, on renewable energy, partly for themselves and partly to export abroad.

In China, $30 billion is targeted for clean energy, including wind, solar and hydropower. The goal for solar power in that country is to grow to 20 gigawatts by 2020 (equal to 20 nuclear power plants), from less than 2 gigs now.

In South Korea, the government plans to invest 2% of its GDP in clean energy industries like solar batteries, hybrid cars and LED lights over the next 5 years.

And neighboring Australia is spending $1.35 billion on solar projects, $270 million on home solar systems and $100 million for next-generation solar technologies.

Are we really going to stick with oil and coal? How 20th century is that?

(Sources: Greenwire, Climate Wire, Renewableenergyworld.com)

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)

Stimulus money boosts clean energy, efficiency

(Photo of wind turbine installation in Indiana from Flicker and photographer indywriter/Rob Annis)

You may be wondering how (and when) the $787 billion stimulus bill will help renewable energy? It was supposed to be part of the mix, remember – green jobs? Well, four programs were announced by the Department of Energy in the past two weeks, possibly in reaction to complaints the stimulus isn’t coming fast enough to stimulate.

Clean energy grants
Grants totaling $3 billion will soon be available to clean energy companies, with applications being taken starting Aug. 1. The money will cover 30% of the cost of any approved project and will be paid upfront.

These grants will be available for a wide variety of technologies, including wind, solar, hydro, landfill gas, biomass, fuel cells, geothermal heat pumps, and combined heat and power. They should help pay for about 5,000 projects, according to the DOE.

Private investment in renewable energy has sagged recently, reflecting overall economic and credit problems. The stimulus will provide a short-term boost, though officials say cap-and-trade is needed to spur long-term demand for clean energy.

State projects
DOE also gave $141 million to several states last week for energy-efficiency and clean-energy projects. This is just a portion of $3.1B allocated for the states. Hawaii got $10.4 million for energy efficiency in buildings while Texas received $87.5 million for efficiency in public facilities. Others states getting money were Maine, Nebraska and New Mexico. So far half of the money allocated to the states for such projects has been released.

States also got $448 million for weatherization projects. This should affect some 125,000 homes in 13 states, according to DOE. Households with incomes up to 200% of the poverty level are eligible and should be able to save an average of 32% on heating bills once the work is done.

Appliance rebates
Finally, $300 million was announced this week for rebates for Energy Star appliances. States will administer the program and determine both the appliances covered and the level of rebates, as well as a recycling plan for the old appliances. Kind of a “cash for clunkers” in the kitchen. Initial applications must be filed by the states by Aug. 15.

A total of $174.9 billion of the $787 billion in stimulus money had been made available by July 4, and $60.4 billion had been paid out, according to recovery.gov. As of that date DOE had made $7.15B available and paid out $243,000 for clean energy and efficiency.

(Sources: Climatewire, E&E News PM)

Climate bill waits in Senate for health reform

Climate action in the Senate is being pushed back to autumn because health reform is now dominating the agenda. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week he is delaying until Sept. 28 the deadline for 6 committees working on the Senate version of cap-and-trade.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), taking the lead on the Senate’s comprehensive climate legislation, said her Environment and Public Works Committee would wait till after the August recess to complete markup of the bill. Democrats have a strong majority on her committee so she’s not likely to have trouble getting approval and moving it to the floor. Meanwhile, she and several other committee chairs have started holding hearings.

Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who will work with Boxer to draw up specifics of carbon-allowance distribution, is currently taking the lead on health legislation.

The extra time will also allow advocates to press for the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.

How the vote stands now
As of July 7, there are 45 yes and probably yes votes, according to an analysis by Environment and Energy Daily. (See where your senators stand at www.eenews.net/eed/documents) And there are 32 firm and probable no’s. The yes votes include Independents Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (both Maine and both probable.) All the solid no’s are GOP.

The 23 fence-sitters (17 of them Democrats) are being barraged by both sides and will likely force some concessions to come over to the yes side. This could make the Senate bill even weaker than the House version, while environmentalists hope it will be stonger. Many in the middle have their hot-button issues. For Mary Landrieu (D-La.) it’s increasing traditional oil and gas production. For some Midwesterners it’s protecting manufacturing. The trick is to collect 12 votes (maybe 13, depending on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s health) without crippling the bill.

The Agriculture Committee is likely to follow the lead of its counterpart in the House to make additional demands, said Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), committee chair. He is expected to want provisions more favorable to ethanol and farms. After winning concessions in intense negotiations, the ag bloc gave the House version enough votes to pass 219-212.

Other committees having a say include Energy, which already approved a bill dealing with energy but not cap-and-trade; Foreign Relations; and Commerce. Boxer intends to draw on the energy bill for hers. It includes a 15% Renewable Energy Standard (RES) many see as too weak and allows drilling much closer to the west coast of Florida.

Reid and the White House hope to have passage of the bill in time to influence the next big international (post-Kyoto) negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

So the proverbial “whole world is watching.”

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Some Dems could lose seats over climate vote

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Cliff1006.)

As soon as the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act was over in the House (likely even before), gleeful Republicans were aiming to pick off some swing seats in next year’s election.

Identifying the bill as a job-killer and “national energy tax,” the Republican National Campaign Committee swung into action last week, running radio ads and sending out robo calls attacking moderate Democratic congressmen who voted for it.

So the 2010 campaign has begun.

But liberals are not far behind as Americans United for Change and a coalition of the Blue Green Alliance, Environmental Defense and America’s Building Trades Unions started robo calls and posting TV ads of their own, thanking the same reps for voting to “create millions of clean energy jobs, not in India or China, but right here in America.” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said the Dems are not going to “run away” from the issue, which they think is popular with the public.

Recent polls showed strong support for renewable energy jobs that would lessen dependence on foreign oil – though people weren’t as concerned about greenhouse gases. Hence the strong emphasis on jobs.

One seat that’s in play is in the southern half of New Mexico, a major oil and gas hub. Former Rep. Steve Pearce (R) will try to gain back his seat from Harry Teague (D), who wrested away the traditionally Republican district after Pearce resigned to run for Senate. (Tom Udall beat him by 20%.) GOP ads in New Mexico are claiming the bill would cost the district 3,000 jobs. The Dems are countering by linking Pearce to President Bush and the country’s financial woes.

Others being targeted include Reps. Ben Chandler (Ky.), John Boccieri, Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Mark Schauer (Mich.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Frank Krotovil (Md.), Dan Maffei (NY), Mike Doyle (Pa.) and Tom Perrielo and Rick Boucher (Va.).

Could it be their fast action is really a warning to undecided senators as the focus of cap-and-trade shifts to that chamber?

The GOP has not yet gone after (though conservative commentators have) the 8 Republicans who voted for the bill, which won by just 7 votes. They are Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Mike Castle (Dela.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), John McHugh (N.Y.), and Frank LoBiodo, Leonard Lance and Chris Smith (all N.J.). Most of them no doubt voted as they did because their constituents wanted them to and they hope to keep their seats. In Kirk’s case, he’s being touted as a GOP candidate for Obama’s old senate seat (now being sat in by Roland Burris).

In the end it’s (almost) all about politics. The planet be damned.

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

U.S. joins International Renewable Energy Agency

(Photo of model Masdar City transit vehicle from Flickr and Zerochampion/Phil Clark.)

The U.S. signed on this week as one of 137 members of a new international agency. The group’s goal is to rapidly spread renewable energy and energy efficiency around the globe.

Let’s hope this group will be able to help forge agreement among developed and developing countries that will lead to curbing greenhouse gases. It seems especially important in light of India’s recent declaration it will not submit to a cap on emissions. The agency plans to coordinate with, instead of duplicating, other organizations and programs.

By joining before June 29, the U.S. was able to help determine the International Renewable Energy Agency’s interim headquarters, Abu Dhabi. The capital of the United Arab Emirates is near the planned $22 billion “zero emissions” Masdar City. UAE also has said it will cut GHG emissions overall 7% by 2020.

The new agency, IRENA, will become a repository of data and advise members on technology, regulatory frameworks, business models and financing.

The U.S. was signed up by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who said clean energy and energy efficiency are important goals of American foreign policy. Clinton was pressed to take this action by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a co-author of the American Climate Energy and Security Act, passed in the House last week.
(Source: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Senate split on follow-up to House climate bill

What now? The House narrowly (219-212) passed a cap-and-trade bill Friday that aims to curb greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. (If you want to see how your rep voted, go to www.clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml) The lobbying was intense, with the Obama administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), environmental groups and key sponsors twisting arms till the last minute to overcome the heavy spending of the old “dirty” energy industry and GOP. They squeaked through with one vote to spare.

Attention has now turned to the Senate. President Obama set aside a Health Care message and used his Saturday radio broadcast to push for Senate approval of a similar bill. Both sides are again gearing up for a fight.

Two bills or one?
House Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he and six committee heads will craft a comprehensive bill for this fall.

Energy Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has jumped out front and already passed a bill out of committee, with bipartisan support, that would establish a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) of 15% by 2021, though a third of that percentage could be earned through energy efficiency. The heavily flawed compromise bill also would allow offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico within 45 miles of Florida (as opposed to the 100-235 mile buffer established in 2006).

Environmental groups oppose this bill in the current form, but note new numbers for a more stringent RES (25% by 2025) can be added on the floor with just 51 votes. Another problem is that it protects dirty Canadian oil sands from a 2007 law keeping the federal government from buying fuels with higher greenhouse gases than conventional fuels.(Yes, you read it right -- oil sands produce more GHG than traditional fuels. But, hey, Canada is our friend. Translation: they're not Arab.)

Meanwhile Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is marking up a cap-and-trade bill modeled on the House bill, which she hopes to have out of her committee before the August recess.

Some say there should be two bills, giving the energy portion a better chance to pass if cap-and-trade can’t get the requisite 60 votes to avoid filibuster (Al Franken, we need you, and we need you now). However, Reid wants to bundle the package together. He also wants to add a provision that wasn’t in the House bill, for a national “smart grid.”

What do Republicans want?
The Republican Western Caucus released a bill last week, which emphasizes oil, gas and nukes. They gave it the warm and fuzzy name of “Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy Act” or CARE. The goal is to increase domestic fuel production to reduce dependence on foreign oil, while keeping energy prices down. It calls for opening oil reserves on the outer continental shelf and ANWR in Alaska and removing environmental barriers to drilling. Their bill does include incentives for alternative energy sources and plug-in vehicles and investment in infrastructure, but it also wants to reduce barriers to nuclear development and oil shale exploration.

What do people think of all this?
Three-quarters of the public think the federal government should regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and cars to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. But some of those either don’t understand or don’t like the concept of cap-and-trade. A slim majority (52%) approves it, while 43% opposes. About 6 in 10 said they’d favor restrictions even if other countries did nothing, and the same number said they’d pay more, though that percentage varies depending on how much more.

Age was a big differentiator, as you might imagine. Two-thirds of those under 30 favor cap-and-trade, while only 40% of seniors do. Half of senior said there should be some federal regulation, though.

Cap-and-trade is not an easy concept to understand. Proponents need to do a better job of selling it to the public. It may not be the ideal solution, but a carbon tax is never going to fly politically.

We need to make sure the senators are listening to the public as well as to the entrenched interests. Otherwise they’ll be able to block this legislation or turn it to their advantage, and we’ll be back to square one on climate change.

(Sources: E&D Daily, E&E PM, Washington Post, AP, New York Times)

Late-breaking: Agreement on climate bill brings new votes

House Energy Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Agriculture Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) have reached agreement on rural concerns about the pending climate bill. After several days of negotiations, Peterson said Tuesday evening he would vote for the American Climate Energy and Security Act, likely bringing dozens of rural congressmen with him. This greatly improves chances for passage of the comprehensive cap-and-trade bill, possibly as early as Friday. (Source: E&ENewsPM)

Duke vs. Newt: frantic lobbying as House climate bill vote draws near

Duke Energy wants it, Newt Gingrich doesn't. With the House climate bill heading to the floor for debate Friday, lobbying is fast and furious.
In the past two days:
• A group of 22 environmental groups sent a letter to all House members urging them to vote for the bill – the American Energy and Climate Security Act (H.R.2454). Groups included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters. LCV said it would not endorse anyone who votes against it.
• 20 companies and electric utilities took out full-page ads in Washington papers calling for passage because they want the clarity of rules it would bring (and likely because most allowances for cap-and-trade will be given -- not sold -- to polluters at the start). Those signing on included Duke, NRG Energy and PSEG Inc.
• 20 climate scientists sent a letter to Congress saying that to avert a "rapidly developing global climate crisis” they should pass a strengthened version of the bill as a basis for stronger federal policies. Well-known NASA scientist James Hansen, who is convinced CO2 emissions must be cut back to 350 parts per million (from the current 385) rather than the early target of 450 ppm, did not sign.
• President Obama urged passage during his news conference Tuesday, saying it would spark a clean-energy transformation.
• The Cooler Heads Coalition, a new group of science skeptics and other legislative opponents began lobbying Congressmen.
• Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for a Winning Future planned to run a TV ad, starting Wednesday, opposing the bill and saying it would hurt the economy.

Are the votes there to pass it?
On Tuesday there were 170 reliable votes and 108 on the fence, according to an analysis by E&E Daily. 218 votes are need to pass the bill. If the votes aren’t there, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he may push it back until after the Fourth of July.

In years past the Senate took the lead on climate legislation, and the House has never passed a cap-and-trade bill. But this year the Senate is lagging behind, with a weak energy bill out of the Energy Committee and Barbara Boxer still crafting a cap-and-trade bill in her Environment Committee. So even if the House manages to pass this bill, Senate agreement is not by any means secure.

A few other points
* The EPA said Tuesday the bill would cost the average household between $80 and $111 a year. Congressional Budget Office figures released Friday said an average of $175 a year, with a range of $40 to $245 depending on income level.

* The bill has been changed somewhat in recent days to accommodate the eight committees with some jurisdiction. A concern of Agriculture Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has apparently been met by giving rural electric cooperatives one-half a percent of the free allowances. But agriculture is still concerned about who will oversee farm offsets, the Agriculture Department or the EPA. And moderate Democratic representatives from farm states are needed on this vote.

* States would now be permitted to spend 10% of their allotment (which in turn is 10% of free allowances) on public transportation.

* Because of the powerful farm interests, methane emissions from cows have been exempted from the bill. They called it a “cow tax.” Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and cows produce about 25% of the emissions so that’s a significant exemption.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Waxman-Markey climate bill may be foiled next week by Dem agriculture chair's voting bloc

(I’m back, after a 7-month hiatus during my husband’s illness and death. I’m back earlier than I planned because next week could be critical for the fight against climate change.)

Rural agriculture interests threaten to kill hopes of passing a comprehensive global warming bill in the House next week – and maybe even this year. The Democratic chair of the Ag Committee, Collin Peterson (Minn.), is jawboning with bill sponsor Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who hopes to resolve differences to win over a necessary block of votes.

In case you missed it, with the media focused on health care, Congress is working on a cap-and-trade climate bill that could go to the House floor as early as Monday – if they have the votes to pass it.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES (H.R.2454), spearheaded by House Energy Chair Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), passed out of committee May 21. (Note that Waxman is now chairman of the committee Rep. John Dingell (D-Autos) used to lead, or this wouldn’t be happening.)

What’s in the bill
ACES sets a goal to reduce greenhouse gases 80% by 2050, a percentage scientists agreed is needed to avoid massive climate change and calamity. The problem, of course, is these reductions are based on 2005 greenhouse gas levels, not 1990 as the Kyoto agreement was, and during that time we accumulated a nice little built-in increase of CO2 in the atmosphere we won’t get rid of for 100 years. We’ve lost more than a decade since it became really clear we need to make huge reductions to avoid the powerful storms, water shortages, coastal inundation and other catastrophes higher temperatures are bringing.

H.R. 2454 key provisions:
* Set up a cap-and-trade system, with an increasingly lower cap on emissions and allowances to be traded as needed to meet those goals.
* Reduce carbon emissions from major sources 17% by 2020.
* Auction 15% of allowances at the start. The rest will be given away to electrical utilities and other industries impacted by the bill.
* Require that electric utilities meet 20% of their demand with renewable sources and efficiency by 2020.
*Invest in renewable sources, energy efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration, and electric and other advanced vehicles.
* Improve energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.
* Fund efforts to reduce international deforestation.

Uncertainty about next week
Waxman and Markey and the Democratic leadership won’t go to the floor for debate unless it looks like they have the 218 votes needed to pass. After many voting blocks, such as coal, were wooed by giving them free allowances to start, the main holdup now is Agriculture Chair Peterson, who controls a 45-member bloc of votes. His main concern is that the formula for free allowances for electric utilities works against small rural cooperatives because it depends in part on sales. Others want to keep the carefully crafted formula as it is – half based on previous emissions and half on sales.

Green groups still pushing
Environmental organizations are still trying to strengthen the bill. They say 100% of allowances should be auctioned from the start. That’s what President Obama’s budget called for, but it seems giving away freebees is the only way, politically, to get this off the ground. Enviros want more emphasis on clean energy and efficiency, and a bigger emissions cut in the short term. As they lobby to strengthen the bill, they are far outspent by industry lobbyists. A study a few weeks ago showed a ratio of 16:1. That’s why your voice is needed.

What you can do
If you haven’t contacted your representative, now is the time to do it – this weekend. The bill could be filed as early as Monday, with debate Thursday and Friday, and a possible vote late Friday before the House breaks for the Fourth of July. Waxman wants a vote then because after the Fourth full attention will be on health care.

If we don’t get a climate bill by the end of the year, it may be another year or two (at least) before we do. And we’ll go empty-handed to the international meeting in Copenhagen in December, which gives us very little bargaining power with China and the rest of the world in coming up with a global treaty to replace Kyoto.

Call the Congressional switchboard at (212)224-3121 and ask for your rep by name. Tell his/her aide that you want this climate bill (H.R.2454) passed next week.
(Sources: American Clean Energy and Security Act, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Sierra Club.)

Should GM have to rescue mass transit?

EarthlingAngst is on a short hiatus due to illness in the family. But we thought you'd appreciate the following thought-provoking article from CommonDreams.org -- GM Should Have to Remake the Mass Transit System it Murdered.

Sydney Harbor faces major sea level rise by 2050

(Photo of Sydney Opera House from Flickr and photographer Michael McDonough)

News Update: The iconic Opera House on Sydney Harbor will be endangered by rising sea levels as early as 2050, not to mention the homes, beaches, hotels and roads that surround the harbor. I’ve been to this beautiful spot and can only imagine what a tragedy that would be for Sydney’s people, economy and way of life. A new Australian study predicts a 2-degree C temperature increase and sea-level rise of 40 centimeters (15.74 inches) by mid-century. Each centimeter results in erosion of about one meter (3 feet-plus). The study, commissioned by New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees and conducted by the University of New South Wales, also forecasts more brushfires and erratic rainfall leading to both water shortages and flooding. The study’s findings have profound implications for urban planning in the region, not just for Sydney but other coastal communities. Rees reiterated his strong support for Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and energy efficiency. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald)

California voters OK bonds for high-speed rail, Missouri passes renewable electricity standard

(Photo of ballot marked yes for highspeed rail from Flickr and and photographer Brad Lauster)

News Update: A smattering of good news from around the nation:
• California authorized $20 billion in bonds to construct a 700-mile high-speed train line from San Diego to San Francisco. Not surprisingly, the coastal communities wanted it, because they’ll benefit, but the inland voters did not. The project will need additional federal and private funding for completion, not an easy ask in these tough economic times.
• Two other California propositions, opposed by environmental groups, were voted down: The T. Boone Pickens-backed proposal that encouraged natural gas use for autos and a poorly written plan for 50% RES by 2025. (Bad news: San Francisco’s effort to take over the local utility and shift to renewables also failed.)
• Missouri voters OK’d a 15% renewable electricity standard by 2021, the third state to vote for an RES after California and Washington (others have been approved by state legislatures).
• Voters in 11 coastal towns south of Boston gave 87% approval to the controversial Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound. None of the towns are on Cape Cod, where opposition is strongest. The project has the state’s environmental OK and the state’s Siting Board begins hearings this week. Final hurdle will be the U.S. Interior Dept. A ruling there is expected this month.
• In Seattle, 3 urban counties around Puget Sound, approved $22.8 billion for bus and rail transit.
• Florida voted for a modest measure giving tax exemptions for rooftop solar installations.
• Colorado voters reduced tax credits on oil and gas, with money to be used for a number of purposes including renewable energy and efficiency. So the states inch
(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire)

Obama plans to reverse Bush and give California waiver for tailpipe emission limits

(Photo of President-elect Barack Obama from Flickr and and photographer jmtimages/Jack Thielepape)

News Update: A waiver to free California and many other states to set more stringent tailpipe emission standards is among many reversals of Bush executive actions President-elect Obama plans to take quickly upon entering office. Bush’s EPA denied the waiver, which would let California require a 30% cut in emissions from vehicles between 2009 and 2016, mandating fuel economy of at least 36 mpg by that time. 17 other states adopted that law but could not implement it because of the EPA ruling. Additional states, including Illinois, are trying to pass such a ‘clean car’ law. This is just one of about 200 executive measures Obama plans to reverse, ranging from stem cell research to international family planning. On the climate front, it is expected he will pay special attention to a brand new book, “Change for America,” by the Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta, chair of Obama’s transition team. The book recommends that the new president quickly appoint a National Energy Council to coordinate all policy related to global warming. It would make sure all steps were coordinated and ensure attention for climate change inside the White House. Meanwhile, President Bush is planning some 11th-hour loosening of regulations on power plants near national parks, mountain-top removal coal mining in Appalachia and uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. (Sources: Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers)

Waxman-Dingell power struggle in House could set direction for global warming bill

(Photo of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) from Flickr, Public Citizen and photographer Bridgette Blair)

Weekly Angst: If the House can’t pass a good climate change bill with its current leadership, then the thinking is a coup may be in order. Thus liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has launched an effort to usurp the chairmanship held by conservative auto-industry ally Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). Dingell is head of Energy Committee, responsible for bringing global warming legislation to the floor, but has been moving very slowly over the past two years, finally issuing a draft proposal last month. Waxman is the No. 2 Democrat on the committee.

At the same time, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is considering going after Dingell colleague Rick Boucher’s (D-Va.) post as head of Energy’s important subcommittee on air quality. In a move to circumvent industry-friendly octogenarian Dingell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) named Markey to chair a select committee on global warming over for past 2 years. He held hearings but had no authority over legislation in that post.

Dingell-Boucher bill
Boucher has worked with Dingell to issue a series of white papers and co-authored his proposal, which:
• Relies on a cap-and-trade system covering 88% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
• Sets a goal of reducing GHG 6% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, 44% in 2030 and 80% by 2050.
• Phases in requirements for utilities in 2012, large industrial plants in 2014 and residential and commercial distribution companies for natural gas in 2017.
• Sidesteps how carbon allowances would be distributed, but says any free credits would be phased out by 2026.
• Increases building code efficiency of 30% by 2010 and 50% by 2020.
• Allows companies to meet some of their compliance targets by offsets, as well as banking or borrowing credits.

Letter of Principles
Waxman, Markey and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) presented their own Letter of Principles signed by 152 House members who support – among other things – a faster reduction of emissions to 15-20 percent below current levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century and would auction all allowances. For more on the Letter of Principals, see an earlier post of Earthling Angst.

Dingell and Waxman are now in a rush to round up House members to support their bids for the chairmanship. Dingell is favored to get support from reps from oil and coal states. Waxman is seen as friendlier to expected Obama Administration’s policies.

(Source: E&E News PM)

‘Stevens effect’ upsets predictions of defeat, while Senate becomes more environment-friendly

(Photo of Jon Stuart spoofing Sen. Ted Stevens on The Daily Show from Flickr and photographer Ellen van den Berg

Nov. 6 update: Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith (R) has conceded to Dem challenger Jeff Merkley, who will be another reliable vote for global warming legislation.

News Update: Forget the ‘Bradley effect.” We now have the “Stevens effect.” Convicted Ted Stevens (R) of Alaska was down 10 points in the polls right before Election Day. But Wednesday afternoon he was leading as votes continued to be counted. Apparently people didn't want to admit to pollsters that they were voting for a convicted felon. Stevens, targeted by the League of Conservation Voters as one of their Dirty Dozen,is about 4,000 votes ahead of his challenger Mark Begich (D). Still to be counted are nearly 50,000 absentee and early-voting ballots, however. Begich would be better for the environment. Stevens' fellow Dirty Dozen colleague Rep. Don Young (R) also was leading Wednesday. Other LCV Dirty Dozen targets who survived were Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member on the Environment Committee, who doesn't believe in global warming. But there’s good news too. Headed for the Senate and likely to help the cause considerably are Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and his cousin Mark Udall (D-Colo.), as well as Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.). Mark Warner (D) will replace John Warner (R) from Virginia, though John was a pretty good friend of those fighting climate change. Still hanging in the balance, pending a recount, is Al Franken (Minn,) who is several hundred votes behind incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R), though Norm’s voting record hasn’t been bad of late. Another undecided race pits incumbent Gordon Smith (R) against challenger Jeff Merkley (D)in Oregon. Merkley trails slightly but some say votes still to be counted are from Democratic districts. With help from Independents Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.), as well as progressive Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Stowe of Maine, President Obama may be able to pass significant global warming legislation. It’ll be interesting to see how John McCain votes, if he votes, now that he’s no longer beholden to the right wing of his party.

Judge blocks NYC plan for hybrid taxis

(Photo of hybrid taxi in NYC from Flickr and nanaze/Nathan Naze)

News Update: I've been critical of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley for not copying New York's plan for a complete switch-over to hybrid taxis in 5 years. Now I see why he may be going slower. A federal district judge has just blocked NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s climate change plan for all new taxis to meet a 25 mpg fuel-economy standard this fall and 30 mpg next October. The judge said only the federal government has authority to determine fuel-economy, based on the Clear Air Act. The Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, which represents the NYC cabs, had filed suit. One argument was that hybrids were too small to install a bullet-proof shield between driver and passengers, but the ruling was not based on that. Bloomberg called federal law on this matter “archaic.” He vowed to work with the NY congressional delegation to strengthen fuel-economy laws so that cities can take action to reduce pollution. He also said he’d ask the city’s Taxi Commission to provide incentives for choosing smaller cabs over the popular Crown Victorias, which get only 12 mpg. Nearly 10% of the city’s taxis are now hybrids. (Source: 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)

Update on key Senate races, and ballot item to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2040 in SF

(Photo of voters from Flickr and photographer .micheal.newman)

Weekly Angst: We have some great chances to change the playing field for global warming this Election Day, not only by electing Barack Obama president, but also bringing a half dozen or more champions for the environment into the Senate. As of this weekend, it looks like Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is now strongly on track to defeat convicted felon Ted Stevens (R) in Alaska. Stevens was one of the League of Conservation Voters’ Dirty Dozen. Begich leads by 10.3 points in Real Clear Politics’ polling average. In other races where environmentalists are in the lead, the Udall cousins, Tom of New Mexico and Mark of Colorado, both Dems, have commanding leads in their respective races for Republican senate seats. Tom is 14.6 points ahead and Mark 12.5. In New Hampshire, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is well ahead (9.8) in her effort to beat incumbent John Sununu.

Two other important races for global warming are leaning toward the candidate favored by environmentalists: Kay Hagan (D) in North Carolina (3.7), Jeff Merkley (D) in Oregon(5.3). In Minnesota Al Franken (D), endorsed by some environmental groups is now trailing incumbent Norm Coleman by an average of 2.2 points in a close race. Another close contest is led by Dirty Dozen’s Mitch McConnell, Republican Minority Leader, whose average lead is 4 points. Unhappily No. 1 on the Dirty Dozen list, Sen. James “Global Warming is a hoax” Inhofe (R-Okla.), is sailing easily to re-election with a lead of 16.7. His opponent, Andrew Rice, can’t rely on Barack Obama’s coattails either, because McCain leads in Oklahoma by 29 points. For more on these Senate candidates, check my post of 2 weeks ago.

Dirty Dozen House members
Several House members targeted by LCV look headed for defeat. Rep. Don Young (R), Alaska’s only Congressman, is running about 8 points behind Dem. Ethan Berkowitz. Young, like Sen. Ted Stevens, has served a long, long time. This red state could lose 2 of its 3 seats in Washington to Democrats. Anne Northrup (R-Ky.) is trailing John Yarmuth (D) by double digits. And Dean Andal (R-Calif.) is 11 points behind Jerry McNerney (D). Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) trailed challenger Mark Schnauer (D) by 8 in the one poll I could find. It’s unclear what’s happening in his Michigan Dirty Dozen colleague Joe Knollenberg’s(R) race against Gary Peters, and DD’s Sam Graves (R-Mo.) has a strong lead to maintain his seat.

Renewable energy on the ballot
Those wacky San Franciscans are way out front once again. This time they hope to pass Proposition H, which would let the city take ownership of the local distribution channels of PG&E, the electric company, and push for 100% renewable energy in the next 3 decades. Supported by 8 of 11 city supervisors, the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party, Prop. H calls for a study of whether the city should become its own electricity provider. Passage would allow the city to issue bonds to pay for the distribution channels, regardless of what the study finds. It also would be able to build wind farms and encourage more rooftop solar panels. Shorter-term goals for the switch to renewable energy are 51% by 2017 and 75% by 2030. PG&E now has 13% renewables.

Part of Pickens Plan also on ballot
A controversial initiative, Prop. 10, will have Californians voting on part of the Pickens Plan – the natural gas part. Pickens himself is the brains behind the ballot measure to provide incentives for vehicles that run on condensed natural gas. His company, Clean Energy Fuels, is bankrolling the measure and environmental groups point out that he stands to benefit financially. Prop. 10 would authorize $5 billion in bonds for renewable energy and alternative fuels, which would include the fossil fuel natural gas. Half the money would go to buyers of alt-fuel vehicles. The Honda Civic that runs on CNG would get a $10,000 rebate, while hybrid Prius would get only $2,000. The measure is opposed by the Sierra Club, LCV and Union of Concerned Scientists. It sets the standard for low-carbon fuels at just 10% less than emissions from gasoline.(BTW, the wind part of Pickens Plan is being downsized because of the credit crunch, T. Boone told the Charlotte Observer last week -- though he wouldn't say by how much. He reportedly has lost hundreds of millions from his hedge fund in the past month.) Also, on the ballot in California is a measure to sell bonds for a high-speed train line between LA and San Francisco.

And then, of course, there’s Obama
In case anyone needs reminding, see my earlier post on why he’s much better than McCain on global warming. And in GOP Veepmate Sarah Palin’s energy policy speech this week, she never once mentioned global warming or climate change.

(Sources include: ClimateWire, Greenwire, Realclearpolitics)

China fossil fuel emissions on track to double

(Photo of pollution haze in Beijing from Flickr and photographer Addictive Picasso)

New Update: A new report from Chinese researchers wsays that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels will double by 2030 if serious steps aren’t taken to cut them. “China Energy Report,” from the Chinese Academy of Scientists, warns of drastic repercussions if China tries to follow in the steps of developed countries on energy use. Lead author is Wei Yiming, who worked with the UN panel that assessed global warming. The report does not include emissions from farming or deforestation. The Chinese government predicted last year that the country would emit an estimated 2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2050. The new report estimates 3-4 billion tons. China passed up the U.S. in GHG emissions last year. The Oak Ridge Laboratory estimates U.S. emissions at 1.6 billion in 2007 and China’s at 1.8 billion. (Sources: Reuters, thedailygreen)