Iceland a volcanic wonderland with all renewable energy

(Photo of Strokkurd geyser erupting, as it does every few minutes at Geysir Hot Springs Area in southern Iceland. Photo by Sabrina Linton)

I just got back from a trip to Iceland with my grandchildren Bryan and Sabrina. The pristine island nation is hauntingly beautiful in a volcano-y, geothermally, green-mossy sort of way. There's very little pollution. If all the world were like Iceland we wouldn’t have to worry about climate change.

Blessed with plenty of natural hydro and geothermal energy, the country derives virtually all of its electric power from renewable sources. It fuels 90% of its heating and 25% of its electricity with the geothermal power simmering below its surface and has 7 geothermal power plants, 6 of them currently operational. Hydroelectric power fuels the balance.

Iceland is in a race with France, Israel and others to change over to electric vehicles supported by a nationwide EV charging network. Northern Lights Energy Co. hopes to make Iceland the first country in the world to have a national electric charging grid, which is very possible because of the scarcity of roads. Iceland could service the entire island with 20 well-placed charging stations.

Iceland is also using hydrogen for power. There was a charging station at the harbor and the whale-watching boat we went on was powered by hydrogen.

The fruits and vegetables are mostly organic and livestock aren’t fed antibiotics, our guide told us. Much of what Icelanders eat comes out of the sea, with fishing as its main industry. (No runaway oil wells muddying the waters here.) Low-cost geothermal energy has led to a healthy greenhouse industry, where salad greens, tomatoes, bananas and such are grown indoors. We ate bananas there, assuming had been shipped a long, long way. Maybe not!

This tiny country with just over 300,000 people does have a huge advantage when it comes to pollution from power use. The don’t need much of it.

Of course there are disadvantages to living on a volcanic island. Eyjafjallajökull (I think I can finally pronounce it), the volcano that erupted several months ago, was lying dormant again – at least for now – but caused quite a bit of damage with its ash, which covered farms in the area, requiring evacuation of livestock. The real threat, however, is Vatnajökull, which in the past has followed its smaller sibling and would blow up Europe’s largest ice cap, likely causing deadly floods.

Iceland is one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in the world. Proximity of the Gulf Stream keeps it milder in winter than New York or Toronto. Yet in summer, despite its 24 hours of daylight, high temps are usually in the high 50s or low 60s. We had one warmer day, when it was unusually sunny and in the low 70s, nice enough to have dinner at a sidewalk café in Reykjavik. Another day when we went close to the huge Vatna glacier and rode in a boat among icebergs on a glacial lagoon, we nearly froze. But it was nice to beat the heat back home for a week!

(Sources: GEA International Market Report May 2010, Globetrotter Travel Guide to Iceland, The Daily Green, BBC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: ClimateWire)

GOP plans defense to Dem effort to link spill to climate

Senate Republicans are plotting their defense strategy as Dems try to agree on how to pursue climate and energy legislation, in advance of a bi-partisan meeting with President Obama Tuesday.

The White House meet was postponed from last week because of the Gen. McChrystal flap.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last week pulled together Republicans invited to that meeting to make sure they hold together under pressure to sign on to a climate bill. He told them to focus on the Gulf oil spill, and not tie it to climate change, as Dems want. And he warned any bill with an “energy tax” (cap-and-trade) would go nowhere.

Meanwhile Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) held two caucus meetings, the second of which was praised as “inspirational” by attendees, yet was unable to find common ground on how strong and comprehensive an energy bill should be.

Polluters should pay
Dems agreed to emphasize “polluters pay” in their bill and Reid said there should also be millions of new jobs, a cut in pollution and energy independence. But they didn’t get much further than that.

Alternatives range from the comprehensive Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act based on cap-and-trade, to a weaker version that just regulates utility companies, to an energy-only bill without any price on carbon, to a very weak bill energy bill from Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).

The problem is getting all Dems onboard and picking up at least one Republican. Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) is seen as a possible vote for linking clean energy to the spill.

But it may be difficult to get the support of all Dems. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he wants to focus on suspending the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases and pushing for clean coal – not exactly what most other Dems have in mind.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has suggested that a diverse panel of about 10 Democrats try to hammer out compromise legislation they think can get 60 votes.

But there’s not much time to act. Just one week between now and the Fourth of July and then 25 days until the August recess. After that elections will dominate.

And it won’t necessarily be easy to reach agreement on the other part of the bill – reforming offshore drilling regulations. Lifting the liability cap is already controversial.

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

Academy study reaffirms climate change, but guess what? We have to change consumer habits to save energy

(Image of Earth from Flickr NASA and Woodleywonderworks)


The planet is warming and human activities are the main cause, reaffirms a trilogy of reports, “America’s Climate Choices,” released last week by the National Academy of Sciences.

With business as usual the Earth’s temperature will rise between 2-11.4 degrees F by 2100, the Academy said. And sea levels could rise up to 6.5 feet, considerably higher than previous estimates.

Generally confirming the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Climate Change Panel, which deniers have tried to sully in recent months, the Academy calls for the following steps, which will be very difficult but technically possible:

• Reduce the demand for goods and services needing energy (this is the tough one, requiring changes in consumer behavior).
• Move to low- and zero-carbon energy sources.
• Capture carbon from the atmosphere, with forest and soil, but also with some kind of carbon “scrubber.”
• Improve energy efficiency.

What we need to do now
In the short range, to accomplish these longer-range goals, we must:

• Set an economy-wide price on carbon.
• Invest in and incentivise new technologies.
• Exert U.S. leadership for the rest of the world.
• Have a flexible attitude toward innovation by states, localities and regions.
• Pay attention to greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.

The reports were requested in 2008 by Congress, which also asked for recommendations on how to solve the climate problem. The study calls for a closer link between research and decision-making.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) applauded the study and said it would help passage of his climate bill, the American Power Act. The two dovetail nicely, with the marked exception that there’s not enough in the bill to curb deforestation.

Download summaries of the three reports at americasclimatechoices.org
.

(Sources: National Academy of Sciences, Wall Street Journal.)

Why are Kerry, Lieberman unveiling climate bill Wednesday?

NOAA map of spill from Flickr and SkyTruth .)

The Gulf oil disaster has spilled over into the climate bill debate. So why are Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) going to release their climate and energy bill at a press conference next Wednesday? The environment for it seems pretty muddy.

Their third partner, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has pulled out as a key sponsor.

Several coastal-state Democrats have said no way will they support a bill that expands offshore drilling.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have hardened their position favoring offshore drilling, despite the spill. The GOP, Graham included, is saying chill ‘til we know more about the cause of the spill.

In short, Kerry and Lieberman have lost supporters rather than gain them, as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. And they didn’t have 60 votes to begin with.

So why launch this bill now? And how can they placate those on the left – like the two Senators from New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida – to bring them back into the fold? And what about Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who wants more protection for Mid-Atlantic states.

Changes to the bill
We know they are changing the section on offshore drilling. Originally they allowed states to veto drilling within 75 miles of their shores and offered revenue-sharing as an enticement to say yes.

Now, they’ll likely give adjacent states a veto too, and maybe move the boundary out. For sure they will strengthen safety requirements. Few are likely to argue with that.

If they’re smart they’ll exempt New Jersey and Florida, and maybe Maryland.

But will that do it?

Nothing to lose
They’re only unveiling their proposal, not putting it up for a vote. They’ve gotten as far as they can keeping it under wraps. Some fence-sitters have said they want to see what’s in it. Speculation is they’re hoping eventually to pick up a few Republican votes from New Englanders like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Mass. and Judd Gregg of N.H., or George LeMieux of Fla. if the public raises a ruckus.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will not bring the bill to the floor for a vote unless he has 60 votes.

Reid may be banking on public sentiment fueled by the Gulf disaster tipping a few votes in their favor. He really has nothing to lose and reportedly was putting pressure on the sponsors to get the bill out there for others to see.

Kerry’s hoping some will be swayed by a growing coalition of support from business, faith communities, national security and environmental groups. I wonder about the 3 big oil companies that were ready to support it, if the bill is made much stricter about offshore drilling.

Presumably BP won’t be at the press conference unveiling the bill. Neither will Graham – though in the end they may be able to get his vote, if they don’t entirely ax the offshore drilling part.

This won’t be the final bill. There will be discussions and wheeling and dealing and amendments once it’s out in the open.

The impact of The Spill
A lot may depend on what happens with the spill. If it can’t be stopped and tars the coasts of many states, if there are constant photos of birds and wildlife covered with oil and people who have lost their livelihood, some drilling advocates may be forced to come around. It is an election year, remember.

And if the leak can be is stopped soon (don’t hold your breath), then perhaps those on the left will decide drilling isn’t so bad after all and will take the best they can get.

Many agree the current energy situation is untenable – whether they believe in global warming or not. The spill reminds us of that every day.

And those who believe strongly in climate change may, in the end, be unwilling to give up on a bill that caps carbon emissions and advances clean energy, even if it does open the door to limited new drilling offshore.

It’s probably worth a try.

(Sources include Greenwire, E&E News PM, Agence-France Presse via grist.org, CNN, E2Wire)

If Sen. Inhofe is for it, I’m against it; plus what’s the latest with Graham and Reid on climate vs. immigration reform?

Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma, global warming denier, and his Republican colleague George Voinovich (Ohio) are touting a bill to slash 3 pollutants from power plants – if the climate bill fails, which they hope it does. Inhofe and Voinovich are the two ranking Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

On the face of it, who could be against cutting soot-producing sulfur dioxide 80%, smog-forming nitrogen dioxide 50% and mercury 90%. This 3-pollutant legislation was introduced last week by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Tom Carper (D-Dela.)

The problem is this bill does nothing about carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and nothing for renewable energy. It allows coal to continue being the energy of choice for power plants. Fortunately, the measure is unlikely to get legs, because Chair Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) committee has a majority of Democrats.

Voinovich also has a proposal to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, not only under the Clean Air Act, but also under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act. He's covering all his bases.

On climate bill is Graham in or out?
So far he's out. After cancellation of a news conference to unveil their comprehensive climate bill, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) huddled Monday but made no statement when emerging and headed off in different directions, reporters on the scene noted, as if that indicated discord.

At issue – in case you’ve been in a bunker the past few days – is Graham’s refusal to play ball on the climate bill if immigration reform is on agenda this year too. (See Saturday's post below)

Over the weekend and Monday it looked like Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was going to push immigration reform first. Graham, who is also a player on immigration, said he didn’t want to be part of a political ploy to get Hispanic votes for Democrats in November (including beleaguered Sen. Reid.)

But Tuesday Reid seemed to be saying climate change would, in fact, come first. Graham, however, is still sitting this one out. He wants assurance immigration won’t come up at all this year. He's moving the goalposts, as Kate Sheppard said in Mother Jones .

As Kerry tries to keep up the good fight and Lieberman tries to make peace, the two are sending their bill to the EPA for the necessary analysis that could take 4-6 weeks, keeping the bill off the floor.

Meanwhile two of the more moderate Republicans, Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told E&E Daily Tuesday that they’d rather take up energy first, as did several other Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Immigration seems to be something the GOP has no taste for, at least not right now.

What if there’s no climate bill?
A couple of less comprehensive energy bills are waiting in the wings: the Collins-Cantwell CLEAR cap-and-dividend bill that would reduce emissions 20% by 2020. It has no support from labor, however, so its chances are not good.

There’s also the clean energy bill (S. 1462) that passed out of Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) Energy Committee many months ago, which includes a rather small renewable energy standard. At this point that has been merged with Kerry-Graham-Lieberman, but presumably it could stand on its own.
Not a very good bill, though.

And of course the fallback is to just go with EPA regulations for large-source power plants, as well as letting states continue passing their own bills and regional cap-and-trade plans. The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill’s most recent draft does not restrict the EPA and allows California and other states to regulate tailpipe emissions, something the House-passed Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) bill does not.

(Sources: Solveclimate.com, E&E Daily, govtrack, cantwellsenate.org, Mother Jones, Sierra Club)

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)

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.)

Opposition to Obama = poor chance of passing Senate climate bill in 2010

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer wallyg/Wally Gomez)


Prospects for passing a climate bill in the Senate next year are looking grim when Senators return to Washington to pick up where they left off -- squabbling about health care. A bicameral conference group will try to reconcile the House and Senate versions in a way that can pass both houses, likely with no GOP votes. Tops on the agenda after that are financial regulatory reform and a jobs bill. So where will something as controversial as climate change fit in? Or will it?

Some Democratic Senators and the White House are pushing for a cap-and-trade bill this spring, before the heat of the 2010 election campaign picks up. But others are pushing back, suggesting postponement or even dropping the idea altogether.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who got big money in exchange for her vote for health reform, is the underdog in a re-election fight next fall. She’s pushing for an energy bill separate from cap-and-trade. Other Dems down on cap-and-trade include those from Louisiana (an oil state), North Dakota (the leading coal state, which also has oil reserves), Nebraska (concerned about the impact of high energy costs on farming) and Indiana. A vote for cap-and-trade to restrict fossil fuels is not something they want to campaign on next summer and fall.

If any bill materializes that can get 60 Senate votes it will be the compromise being forged by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Such a bill is not guaranteed to contain cap-and-trade and will inevitably have big giveaways to offshore drilling, nuclear power and “low-emissions” coal.

But that assumes they’ll get around to it, when the nation is much more focused on jobs and the economy. Time may run out, thanks to Republican refusal to cooperate on health care and their pretty uniform opposition to climate legislation.

Which brings me to something I’ve been stewing about for months: Why there is such solidarity among Republicans against Obama’s main initiatives. They’ve made it clear, they want him to fail.

The Harold Washington syndrome
It takes me back to the election of Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, in the '80s. Most white aldermen (the Vrdolyak 29) banded together to oppose everything he wanted to do. Racism was more blatant, as one of their number showed up the day after the election with an all-white button on his jacket. They wanted him to fail and believed opposing him would play well politically with their white constituents.

Sound familiar? I’ve no doubt race is an issue here, as well as fear of something different (a foreigner from Kenya??) who was swept into office in large part by young people who hadn’t voted before and therefore were considered by many to be illegitimate. Don't think so?

What if Joe Biden where president, with the same agenda? Would there still be the tea parties, the vitriol stirred up by talk show hosts and by politicians like Sarah Palin? Would Joe Wilson have yelled, “You lie” during the President's health care address to Congress?

In Chicago’s case, Washington’s popularity with the people led to his re-election and a change of tune by his opposition who in many cases saw better opportunities for re-election by emphasizing they were now with him, not against him. That could happen with Obama.

But meanwhile, the country -- and the planet -- suffer while the Republicans just say “no.”

(Sources: The Hill, The Times of London, MSNBC)

Time is running out; deal or no deal for climate agreement at Copenhagen this week

(Photo of session at COP15 from Flickr and UN Climate Talks)

It’s hard enough to get 60 Democrat and Independent senators to agree on a health reform bill. Negotiations just seem to boil it down to the lowest level.

But try negotiating with 15,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries. That’s what’s been going on in Copenhagen the past 9 days. Small wonder they haven’t come up with much.

The poor countries want the rich countries, which caused the problem, to be much more aggressive about cutting emissions and to put up about $500 billion a year to save them from climate change.

And the rich countries want the big emerging economies with significant emissions, like China and India, to be accountable to the rest of the world for their planned cuts in carbon intensity (emissions wouldn't grow as fast as the economy.)

After a week of posturing and casting blame (and a half-day walkout by African and other developing countries), not much has been decided.

Now the top environment ministers and celebrities have arrived. Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Prince Charles and N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave them a pep talk and the ministers settled in to try to resolve some things before more than 100 heads of state arrive later this week for the conclusion of the much-touted climate treaty conference, COP15. President Obama will address the group Friday.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Yi-Moon arrived, saying, ”Time is running out. There’s no room for posturing and blaming.”

What now?
Will anything come of this conference? There are only 3 days left.

Despite the discord, some environmental leaders think there may be success. A great deal of advance work was done by the U.S., China and India in the past weeks, with their leaders making specific pledges to curb emissions.

One question is whether Obama will be emboldened to up the ante on his original pledge of 17% (over 2005 levels) by 2020, which is only about 3% over the usual baseline 1990. He now has the EPA’s endangerment finding which allows the administration to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as well as a bipartisan “blueprint” for a Senate bill that would meet the House target of 17%. Our offer is pretty pathetic compared with Europe’s and Japan’s. But does he dare roil up a prickly Senate which has yet to pass any climate bill and would have to ratify any international treaty by (omigod) 67 votes. Probably not.

Another question is will China eventually give in and let others monitor its pledged 40-45% drop in intensity.

Funding for poor nations
A third major area to be resolved is how much the rich countries will put up to fund mitigation and adaptation in poor countries. The mitigation helps us all, by keeping GHG out of the air. The adaptation helps poor countries that are already hurting from the climate change that some say doesn’t exist. (Maybe someone from a disappearing island nation will throw a sandal at wacko Sen. James Inhofe, who plans to show up.)

The European Commission, before the conference began, offered $10.8 billion a year for the next 3 years. Japan just agreed to put in $10B a year. The U.S. apparently has offered $1B next year, to be followed by $2B in 2011 and 2012. We’ve also offered to put $85 million a year for 5 years into a clean energy development fund for these nations.

This is not nearly enough, say the developing countries. They want half a trillion. So how much is really needed? Of course it’s impossible to say. But British economist Nicholas Stern said $100B a year by 2020, then double that amount in the following decade. The EU estimated $147B a year by 2020. And the UN is calling for more than $500B a year.

Of course if we did more to curb emissions sooner, we wouldn’t have to spend so much on adaptation. And conversely, if we end up with a weak deal, or no deal at all, it will cost much, much more – we’ll all need adaptation funds.

(Sources: E&E News PM, ClimateWire, BBC, E&E TV, Huffington Post, Reuters PlanetArk)

Senate climate bill going nowhere soon, if ever; will Obama, EPA and states be the back-up

(Photo of Capitol engulfed in emissions from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action.)

Don’t hold your breath for the Senate to act on climate change. It won’t happen until next spring –- at least.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), lead sponsor of the strongest bill in the Senate, told reporters Monday that Dem leadership won’t start climate debate until after both health reform and financial regulatory reform are disposed of – likely around March.

Meanwhile Kerry is working with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in an effort to craft a bipartisan bill that can garner 60 votes. (Why am I not thrilled about that?) They plan to have an outline ready within three weeks, before the international conference in Copenhagen.

A lot of moderate Democrats and most Republicans in the Senate are finding reasons to oppose climate legislation.

Two of them, Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) have offered an alternative that would emphasize new technology. It would provide $750 million each of the next 10 years for R&D on carbon capture, advanced biofuels, solar power, advanced batteries and recycling of used nuclear fuel. It would also give $1 billion to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review advanced and small nuclear designs. The two said they did not support the Kerry-Boxer bill because it relies on cap-and-trade. (What they didn’t say is it will hurt coal.)

If climate action doesn’t happen by spring, conventional wisdom is that it will be stalled until after the 2010 elections. That doesn’t bode well. If Democrats lose one Senate seat, power will switch to the GOP, and climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe (D-Okla.) will replace Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as Environment Committee chair. We’ll be back to “drill, baby, drill.”

Many Dems in the House, who voted for the climate bill that passed their chamber in June, are now under fire from more conservative Republicans in their districts. It’s unsure how that will play out in the voting booth.

If we can’t get something passed by early spring, it may be left to the president, the EPA and the states to provide the impetus for change. Obama made a pact with China this week for cooperation on renewable energy, the EPA is working on rules to regulate large CO2 emitters, and states in the East, West Coast and Midwest are likely to merge the cap-and-trade markets they have been working on regionally.

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

Arctic ice melt changing global thermostat

(Images of Arctic sea ice thickness over the years from Flickr and climatesafety.org)

While many are skeptical the Earth is warming, the Arctic is one place where the change is very evident. But some say there could be advantages to melting summer ice there – ships can take a shorter route over the top of the globe, massive oil and gas reserves are more accessible. Maybe Arctic melting isn’t all bad, they say.

But does what happens in the Arctic stay in the Arctic?

Probably not, says NOAA. Melting sea ice there seems to be affecting weather patterns around the world, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 4th annual Arctic Report Card.

Changes in the Arctic are “messing with the thermostat for the whole globe,” said Richard Spinrad, assistant administrator of NOAA. The report card compiles the work of 71 scientists in nine countries.

They found climate change was affecting the Arctic is many ways:
• Declining summer sea ice
• A shorter snow season
• Rising land temperatures
• Warming permafrost, which stores methane
• Changes in habitat and numbers of polar bears, walruses and seabirds.

Summer Arctic sea ice hit a historic low in 2007 and has come back a bit the last two summers, which has skeptics saying, “See. There’s no global warming.”

But what’s new and perhaps more important is the thinning of perennial ice, not just that which melts in the summer and then comes back in fall. The average thickness is down 2.2 feet between the 2004 and 2008.

The summer sea ice melt causes more open dark water, which absorbs heat and then sends it back into the atmosphere in fall. This cycle is sending land temps up, letting trees grow in the tundra farther north and affecting atmospheric circulation as far south as middle North America.

As old, thick sea ice goes away and is replaced by more fragile first-year-ice, new climate patterns are being set up, says oceanographer James Overland. “It changes everything,” he told ClimateWire.
• The ocean surface is warmer and less salty
• Greenland is melting
• Siberia has more runoff
• There’s less snow in North America

So, what happens in the Arctic won’t stay in the Arctic. We’d all better take notice.

To read more and see slideshow go to NOAA's Web site

(Sources: ClimateWire, NOAA)

Will Kerry-Graham pact weaken climate bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today is Blog Action Day for climate change.

Photographic Tribute to Our National Parks

This is a tribute to our amazing national parks and to Ken Burns whose PBS series this week reminds us of the need to be eternally vigilant against their destruction by mining, drilling, hunting and honky-tonk development. Climate change is now attacking the parks as well, melting glaciers, drying up rivers, sparking massive wildfires and messing with wildlife, trees and ecosystems. As one who has visited many of the national parks and finds them every bit as compelling as the much vaunted Alps or New Zealand landscape, I have selected some pictures from Flickr to reproduce the beauty I witnessed:


Grand Tetons National Park photo by Alaskan Dude/Fred Kovalchek


Arches National Park photo by Vtveen


Yellowstone National Park photo by Alaskan Dude/Fred Kovalchek


Glacier National Park photo by Spunkinator/Danny


Grand Canyon National Park photo by Cobalt123


Everglades National Park photo by Bill Swindaman


Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, photo by Wugging Gavagal


Bryce Canyon National Park photo by by Vtveen


Yosemite National Park photo by Jim Brekke


Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii, photo by RaSchi/Ragnar Schierholz

Burns' series continues tonight (Monday) on PBS.

Senators try to stop EPA plan to regulate GHG

(Photo of power plant from Flickr and photographer bass_nroll)

Some senators are trying to block the EPA's newfound power to regulate greenhouse gases. They intend to tack an amendment on the EPA funding bill coming up this week. (To object, go to http://tinyurl.com/ntmom).

This effort comes at a time when EPA regulation may be our best hope for curbing greenhouse gases, as the Senate – embroiled in health care – seems more and more likely to punt climate legislation into next year. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said as much this week.

And if climate change doesn’t get resolved early in 2010, it will likely be delayed past mid-term elections to 2011 and a new Congress.

In the meantime, EPA regulation would get the country moving and give the president some achievement to take to the international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen in December. (That treaty is likely to face delay too – it’s very unlikely to be finalized this year. Meanwhile, the planet isn’t waiting for us humans to get our act together.)

Rules for autos ... and more
The EPA, along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, announced this week new fuel economy and greenhouse gas rules to bring the fleet average of new cars and light trucks in 2016 up to 35.5 mpg, as well as GHG emissions down to 250 grams/mile.

Not only does this put fuel economy 5 years ahead of where the Congress mandated it in 2007, but more important: It’s the first time the EPA will regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The agency is entitled, even required, to do so under the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA, but the Bush Administration let it slide.

This has ramifications for all sources of GHG, including large industrial facilities and power plants. In addition to the automobile rules, the agency is finishing up work on its endangerment findings – showing GHG as pollution that endangers people’s health. The EPA is also finalizing regulations to make greenhouse gases part of the permitting process for facilities emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of GHG a year. EPA head Lisa Jackson may sign the endangerment finding as soon as late this month.

Plan B
Some suggest the Senate may leave controversial and complex cap-and-trade on the shelf and just take action on energy – efficiency and renewable sources. They may “defer to the regulatory agency and duck tough political choices,” James Connaughton, former Bush environmental advisor, told ClimateWire.

But “energy-only is worse than no bill at all,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Problems with EPA rules
EPA restrictions alone may not do the job, though, with time running out to stop the growth of greenhouse gases. With EPA regulation only, “you can’t get enough of the job done fast enough,” warned the Natural Resources Defense Council’s David Hawkins.

Furthermore, lawsuits could delay progress for years. Already the National Automobile Dealers Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed suit to prevent regulation of motor vehicles at the federal or state level.

The best answer is to have both – EPA regulations and climate change legislation, which is what most environmental groups want.

We need to protect the right of the EPA to regulate and they need to get started because once they do so it will be more difficult for opponents to have legislation pre-empt them. At the same time a cap-and-trade system will help put a cap on emissions and move the country toward its desired goal. And a new administration wouldn't be able to stop progress in its tracks by changing the rules.

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairs of the Environment and Foreign Relations committees, have been crafting a Senate climate bill they will release later this month. They seem committed to moving ahead with it. Urge your Senators to keep climate and energy on their urgent agenda for this fall at the EDF website.

(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, dailygreen.com)

Public still supports Obama on climate change

Despite waning support for Obama’s health care strategy, the public still supports the president’s handling of energy and climate. Maybe the industry’s efforts to scare people on this issue haven’t taken hold yet.

A mid-August Washington Post-ABC poll showed 55% support Obama on energy, versus just 30% who didn’t. The complexity of the issue resulted is 15% saying they had no opinion.

On cap-and-trade specifically, 52% approved setting a cap on GHG emissions and trading permits, while 43% did not. This was unchanged from June. Among Republicans, however, support dropped to 37% from 45% two months earlier, perhaps reflecting lobbying and perhaps a hardening against Obama policies.

Other findings:
*The majority said overhauling energy policy would not raise energy bills. 58% said if it did they’d be willing to pay $10 a month more. But only 39% were willing to pay $25 more.
*40% expected to see more jobs created in a shift to green energy, while 20% thought jobs would be lost. 40% said there would be no change.
*90% favored more development of wind and solar energy.
*80% supported electric auto technology and 70% were for rebates to encourage purchase of more fuel-efficient cars.
*52% were for more nuclear plants unless, of course, they were close to home (down to 35%).

Despite still-favorable public sentiment, the odds of the Senate passing a strong cap-and-trade bill are long. With a filibuster threatened, the votes are not there yet, as pro- and anti-climate bill groups go on the road to press their case. And much may depend on the president's ability to succeed on health reform.

(Sources: Washington Post, Greenwire)

More climate change tours target swing states to stir up public support for their side

(Photo of Blue Green Alliance at Michigan event from Flickr and stepitup2007

The American Energy Alliance is sponsoring a month-long bus tour of swing states to stir up sentiment about the climate bill. If there's any doubt which side this group is on, you’ll know when you see the blue bus with signs reading, “Stop the national energy tax, save American jobs.” This tour, of country fairs, public meetings and sporting events in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, is in addition to the oil-funded series of Energy Citizen rallies and events sponsored by the coal industry.

It’s yet another Astroturf effort to stir up the “grass roots” against climate change legislation by scaring people. AEA is anti-climate legislation and is partnering this time with the conservative Institute for Energy Research. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

The good guys respond
Also hitting the road is the pro-climate bill “Made in America” jobs tour, sponsored by the Alliance for Climate Protection (Al Gore’s group) and the Blue Green Alliance started by the Sierra Club and Steelworkers union, now including more unions and environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. They will be promoting clean energy jobs and strong climate change policies.

The Blue Green Alliance has estimated that if we pass a renewable energy standard (RES) of 25% of power by 2025, clean energy could create 850,000 jobs.

This tour will go to 22 states, including manufacturing states with swing votes like Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania. For a complete list see Repoweramerica.org/us/tour.

If you live in Chicago and want to go to a pro-climate bill event, the Environmental Law and Policy Center is organizing a rally from 12-1:30 p.m. Monday, Aug. 31, at Federal Plaza, 230 S. Dearborn.

(Sources: Greenwire, repoweramerica.org)

Clean energy is on upswing in U.S., but we need much more to avert climate change

(Photo from Flickr and state of Washington DNR.)

Thanks to state mandates, stimulus money and a slumping economy, the use of dirty coal to produce electricity has dropped slightly in the past year to 46.1% and clean renewables gained traction to 11.1%.

The Energy Information Administration predicts wind will be the source of 5% of electricity in 2020 and all renewable energy will make up 14%.

Coal use fell since last year, while the nation used slightly more natural gas, a bit less oil, and more biomass. (High gasoline prices may have been a factor for oil.) Investment helped wind power grow, while nuclear plants had less downtime, according to a study from the Lawrence Livermore Lab. Hydroelectric grew the most, according to businessgreen.com.

States rights
While Congress struggles to get a meaningful renewable electricity standard (RES), many states – including in July coal state West Virginia – have passed mandates for use of some clean energy in generating electricity. Once again the states are leading in the fight against climate change while the feds lag behind. (This happened with cars, remember?)

Economic slowdown
Total electricity generation is down 5%, year over year, thanks in part to the slowing economy. Industrial production sagged 12.5% in that period, according to the Federal Reserve.

Stimulus funds
Clean energy is expected to benefit from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) money. A revised forecast from EIA shows wind at more than twice the earlier-predicted level in 2012 because of stimulus – 201 billion kilowatt hours instead of 86B, compared with 53B in 2008. Geothermal will benefit as well, growing 16% more by 2013 than if there was no stimulus. Energy efficiency will also improve, with a weatherization program. But let’s not get too excited. The impact on CO2 emissions by 2013 will be slight – down just 1.3% from earlier predictions, because of the stimulus.

We still have a long, long way to go on clean energy. A stronger Senate climate bill would certainly help – one that phases out dirty coal plants while promoting more clean energy, which by-the-way could fill all our energy needs if the infrastructure was updated and the special interests could be silenced. I know: not going to happen.

But we can try. Everyone should contact his or her senators and ask them to work to phase out dirty coal and do more to promote clean energy.

(Sources: E&E Daily, climateprogress.org, Energy Information Administration, greenbusiness.com

Follow earthlingangst now on twitter.

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)

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)