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)

Financial meltdown slams corn ethanol and threatens mass transit, but Big Oil still riding high

(Photo of ethanol plant from Flickr and and photographer freddthompson, actor, senator and presidential candidate)

Weekly Angst: Because of the financial meltdown, ethanol companies are struggling and some are going under. Caught between corn contracts signed last summer when prices were sky-high and lower fuel prices, and with credit hard to come by, businesses are seeing the ethanol bubble of the past year burst. Investors have lost billions. VeraSun Energy, for example, expects to lose up to $103 million this quarter. Its stock is down 90% from its peak earlier this year. And ethanol companies in Kansas and Ohio declared bankruptcy last week. The Agriculture Department is considering loan guarantees to keep ethanol businesses afloat.

Mass transit hits trouble
Mass Transit agencies are also caught in the crunch. They face having to pay banks billions as old financing deals fall apart. The problem was triggered by the failure of insurance giant AIG, which guaranteed deals between the agencies and banks. Because of long-standing agreements to give banks tax shelters by selling them rail cars and then leasing them back, some 30 mass transit agencies around the country are now in danger of having to pay back their loans all at once. Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is the first to be hit. KBC Group of Belgium wants $43 million by next week. The feds may have to get in the middle of this one too – to keep the trains running.

Other repercussions include cancellation of a coal-to-liquid joint venture between Consolidated Energy and Synthetic Energy Systems and the delay of a SunCor Energy oil sands project in Canada. (No tears shed over those).

Major oil companies in good shape
So how is the meltdown affecting Big Oil? With prices dropping rapidly you might think they’re feeling the pain. But apparently not. With record profits last year, they have reduced their debt and are cash fat. So now they can buy up distressed smaller rivals and make deals with resource-heavy countries. Production may be down, but refining should be profitable this year. And they expect less pressure to pass windfall profits taxes. So lower prices and lower demand don’t really bother them. (No one ever said life is fair.)

On the bright side
The economic downturn could benefit green technology, though. It could give government a historic opportunity to climate-proof its infrastructure as part of a public works effort to generate jobs. This may translate into an investment opportunity, says a recent report from Deutsche Bank. The International Energy Agency has called for a $45 trillion investment in climate related technology by 2050. And Deutsche Bank says renewable energy investments have more promise in the long term than tradition energy sources.

At the same time, venture capital continues to flow into Silicon Valley and California in general. VC investments in energy and utilities were up in the 3rd quarter 90% over the same period last year, as investors pulled back from other sectors like information technology, media and financial services. Clean tech reported a record $1.08 billion in investments, most of it going to solar. In the Bay Area, which includes Silicon Valley, overall VC was up 22%, the highest single-quarter total since 2001. One benefit of green technology is most of it is tied to government policy so it’s not as vulnerable to swings in the market.
Observers are waiting to see the results of this quarter, however, anticipating that falling oil and carbon prices could have an impact. VC fell in the third quarter in other parts of the country.

And Neal Dikeman, of Jane Capital Partners, warned that a prolonged financial crisis could have an adverse effect on a 2012 post-Kyoto international agreement to fight global warming, by either delaying or weakening it.

For additional comments on the financial crisis’ impact on climate change see my earlier post.

(Sources: Greenwire, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal)

Senate races may tip Congress on global warming

(Photo of Cong. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) speaking at Democratic Convention from Flickr and photographer Jeffrey Beall)

Weekly Angst: Over the past 2 years a narrowly divided Senate has stymied all kinds of efforts to curb global warming. Now we have a chance to elect 8 new senators who could turn that around. In 6 of the 8 races that offer a clear choice, the environmental candidate either leads or is neck-and-neck with an anti-environment one. The 7th race looks bad and the 8th appears to be a lost cause. The key races are in New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Oregon, North Carolina, Alaska, Kentucky and Oklahoma. But there’s also mention of Minnesota and Maine at the end of this blog.

New Mexico: Cong. Tom Udall (D) has a commanding lead over Cong. Steve Pearce (R). Udall leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by a commanding 17.6 percentage points. Udall, endorsed by a coalition of 5 national environmental groups, is the son of Stewart Udall, who was Interior Secretary under Kennedy and Johnson. Udall co-wrote the Udall-Platts renewable electricity standard (RES) bill that passed the House last year but not the Senate. It would have mandated that power plants use 15% renewable energy by 2020. He has a lifetime score of 96% with the League of Conservation Voters and is seen as someone who would be a leader in the Senate. His opponent is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, with a lifetime score of only 1%. He owns millions of dollars worth of Key Energy stock and voted against repeal of oil subsidies, RES and better fuel economy standards for cars. They are vying for the vacancy left by Republican Pete Domenici’s retirement.

Colorado: Tom’s cousin Mark Udall (D) is a 5-term congressman who also has the endorsement of the 5 national groups who see him as another potential leader against global warming in the Senate. Mark leads his opponent by 9.3 points. The son of “Mo” Udall, who served in Congress 30 years and ran for president, Mark had a 95% LCV score in the last Congress and 100% every term before that. He was involved in passing RES and mandating fuel efficiency for cars (CAFE). He’s running against another Dirty Dozen candidate, former Cong. Bob Schaffer (R), who left Congress to work for an oil company. His lifetime LCV score is 5%. He supports drilling in ANWR and opposes more fuel efficient vehicles and incentives for energy conservation. They are competing for the seat held by Sen. Wayne Allard (R).

New Hampshire: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is the third candidate seen as a leader against global warming and supported by the coalition of 5 organizations (LCV, Sierra Club, Environment America, Defense of Wildlife Action Fund and Clean Water Action.) As governor, she made her state a leader in clean energy. N.H. was the first state to pass a law requiring power plants to cut emissions of 4 pollutants and she made state buildings more energy efficient and promoted alternative energy. She is challenging incumbent Sen. John Sununu (R) and leads him by nearly 6 points in the polls. Sununu has voted for drilling in ANWR, opposes a binding international climate change treaty, and helped block votes on fuel economy, clean energy and the repeal of big oil subsidies. His lifetime LCV average is 35%.

North Carolina: State Sen. Kay Hagan (D), endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and Environment America, has a narrow lead of 3.4 over incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R). Hagan has an 85% score from the N.C. Conservation Council and is considered a proven leader for clean, renewable energy. She has supported solar energy and an RES for N.C. and opposed big handouts to oil and gas. Dole, one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, has a lifetime score of just 4%. She has consistently voted for Big Oil and against CAFE standards. She supports incentives for coal and other dirty technologies.

Oregon: This is another state where the incumbent Republican is trailing slightly behind the Dem challenger, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley.
Merkley has a record of leadership in enacting renewable energy solutions, including an RES of 25% by 2025 and favors cutting GHG by 80% by 2050. Merkley leads by 3.3 points and has strong support from Environment America. Incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith, a 2-term senator, is “an election year environmentalist,” according to Environment America. Generally he has sided with the oil and auto industries and voted against fuel efficiency and curbing global warming, while favoring drilling in ANWR. His lifetime LCV score is 37%.

Alaska: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is challenging 40-year incumbent Ted Steven (R) of bridge-to-nowhere fame and currently on trial for corruption involving gifts and home improvements from an oil man. Begich holds a 2.3 lead in polls and the race is considered a toss-up, despite McCain-Palin's huge lead there. While he has the Alaskan affinity for drilling in ANWR, Begich says Alaska is “ground zero” for global warming and feeling its affects more than anyplace else. He joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Initiative and has replaced streetlights with LEDs, shut down city computers when they’re not in use and harnessed methane from landfills. Stevens, in addition to his other problems, is one of the Dirty Dozen for his environmental policies. He has a 14% lifetime voting record. He consistently votes for tax breaks for oil and has collected $460,000 in gas and oil contributions.

Kentucky: Challenger Bruce Lunsford (D) is putting up a good fight against House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, though McConnell leads by 6.5 points. While favoring “clean coal” Lunsford also touts investment in renewable resources, efficiency and hybrid cars. He’s a health company entrepreneur and raises thoroughbreds. McConnell is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen and is considered an “impassable roadblock in the way of clean energy efforts." So it’s more a matter of getting rid of McConnell, who’s position is powerful, than of pushing Lunsford. But 6.5 two weeks out is not encouraging.

Oklahoma: Even more discouraging is Andrew Rice’s (D) challenge against incumbent James Inhofe (R), who won’t even acknowledge global warming exists. Rice trails by 18 points. He is endorsed by the LCV. He favors putting a price on carbon, accelerating the CAFE standards and passing an RES. Inhofe, No. 1 on the Dirty Dozen list, is ranking member of the Environment Committee (used to be chairman) and has threatened to filibuster every piece of global warming legislation. His lifetime score is 5%. He has accepted nearly $1 million from the oil and gas industry.

Minnesota and Maine: Two other races are worth a quick mention: In Minnesota, challenger Al Franken is running a close race with incumbent Norm Coleman (R), and leads slightly by 2.2 points. Coleman’s environmental record isn’t bad, but Franken who calls for an “Apollo Project” in renewable energy, is endorsed by LCV. Also endorsed by LCV is incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine, who is comfortably ahead (15 points) of challenger Tom Allen (D). Collins often crosses over to vote with the Democratic majority on environmental and other issues and has a 100% LCV score the past 2 years.

Take action: So if you want to see good global warming laws passed by the next Congress, think about sending a contribution to one of the candidates in a toss-up race. And if you live in one of those states, get active and help out in the last 2 weeks if you haven’t already. You can help make a difference.

(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, realclearpolitics.com)

In case you missed it, an earlier EarthlingAngst post shows why Obama is better than McCain for the fight against global warming.


And by the way, Environmental Defense has a cool timeline of progress lost on climate change during the Bush Administration.

Will financial crisis and bailout help or hurt in fight against global warming?

(Headline collage from Flickr and Mother Pie/Hattie Page)

Weekly Angst: The credit crisis and $800-plus billion U.S. government bailout plan will likely have an impact on spending on climate change, but will the positives outweigh the negatives? While conventional wisdom might say there’ll be little money left over to fight global warming, many see green technology as the engine that will drive future growth and revival – at home and around the world.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors last week predicted 4.2 million new green jobs by 2038, adding to the 751,000 already in existence in 2006.

And green technology in Silicon Valley is one of the few industries still growing in California, Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger noted.

The bailout
The add-on to the $700 billion bailout extended tax credits to help renewable energy, efficiency and sales of plug-in cars. While wind energy is a bit shaky, with only a 1-year extension and damage to some of its main investors – AIG, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia – the industry sees slower growth in 2010 but is still hopeful that utilities and other new investors will take a stake in the fast-growing new energy source.

Solar seems in a somewhat better position with an 8-year extension of production tax credits. The demand for solar panels reportedly still exceeds demand.

The American auto industry says it will remain on track to continue producing smaller, fuel-efficient cars and looks forward to competing for the $25B in low-interest loans from the federal government approved earlier this month.

Good signs
Other signs of hope that climate change will remain a high priority in Washington:
• The economic crisis raises the possibility of Democrats getting the 60-vote majority in the Senate they will need to pass a renewable energy standard (RES) and a cap-and-trade bill.
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says climate change remains a priority for her.
• There will be international pressure on the United States to negotiate a viable post-Kyoto treaty.
• And front-runner Barack Obama, should he become president, has touted a $150 billion renewable energy economic plan and produce 5 million jobs.

Problems
Some Republicans, however, may balk at passing a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, because they’ve always been concerned about its impact on the economy and that fear will be heightened. There are those who think such a bill might be held over till 2010, delaying action another year.

Others raise the alternative of a carbon tax, much easier to understand than another complex financial market. But worldwide carbon trading is thriving and expected to grow 80% to $116 billion by next year, thanks in large part to the Kyoto mandate for the European Union.

A major concern for a post-Kyoto agreement is that rich countries may be unwilling to come up with the money and technology for developing countries needed in order to get them to participate in curbing greenhouse gases.

UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon expressed concern last week that short-term financial emergency will eclipse the longer-term problem of global warming.

But finance ministers from around the world, at a World Bank and IMF meeting over the weekend, pledged to keep climate change on a front burner. Even bankrupt Iceland’s minister said, “We can’t afford to delay responding to climate change.”

And economists and UN leaders are creating a green New Deal. The Green Economic Initiative, spearheaded by the UN Environmental Programme, will be launched next week in London with its focus on renewable energy, other green technology and saving the world’s natural systems. Funded by the European Commission, Norway and Germany, the Initiative will – among other things – work to save forests, whose loss, they say, equals more than $2 trillion a year. The Initiative could produce hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide, according to Pavan Sukhder, chairman of Deutschbank's Global Market Center.

(Sources: Reuters, Greenwire, ClimateWire, PlanetArk, Daily Green, The Independent)

10 reasons why Obama is best on global warming

(Photo of Barack Obama by Peter Holderness/Medill News Service)

Weekly Angst: Saving the planet is taking a back seat to the financial crisis right now. But to many of us, climate change remains the top concern for the next president of the United States, because we’re running out of time to stop the catastrophic results of a warming planet. It’s getting so bad that Al Gore, a former vice president, is suggesting civil disobedience.

Unfortunately, when climate change does come up these days, it has morphed into talk about offshore drilling and achieving independence from foreign oil, which is the way John McCain has framed it. The maverick who championed climate change legislation with his buddy Joe Lieberman in 2003 and 2005 has, in this campaign, shifted from concern about greenhouse gases to concern about high gas prices and getting off foreign oil. That means American oil is just fine with him. In fact, the more the better.

The League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and Environment America, the three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates, all jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon early on, because he so clearly will lead the nation to a better place on global warming. As Environment America said, McCain is not the right president to reverse 8 years of the anti-environment Bush Administration.

Talking points
Here are 10 top reasons why Obama is the better candidate on global warming:

1. Obama favors cutting greenhouse gases as much as scientists say we should. His goal is an 80% reduction (from 1990 levels) by 2050. He doesn’t try to second-guess science. McCain’s goal is 60%.
2. Obama has a much better voting record. On the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, Obama’s lifetime record is 86%. McCain’s is 24. During the last 2 years, McCain has missed every important environmental vote, including 2 on renewable energy where a yea vote from him could have made the difference. He deliberately missed all 8 tries to extend the renewable energy tax credits.
3. Obama favors an RES and subsidies for renewable energy. He has called for a renewable electricity standard of 25% by 2025 and for investing $150 billion in renewable energy. McCain opposes RES, as well as subsidies to alternative energies like solar and wind, preferring to let the market work unfettered. Though he seems to favor incentives for nuclear power.
4. Obama is much more cautious about nuclear power. He says it may need to be part of the mix, but safety and waste storage problems must be resolved first. McCain, on the other hand, makes nuclear power a major part of his energy portfolio, calling for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, and 100 eventually.
5. Obama wants all credits in a cap-and-trade system to be auctioned. In other words, polluters must pay for their allowances. McCain says permits would eventually be auctioned, but should mostly be given free at first, and he favors polluters being able to bank or borrow credits based on the economy.
6. Obama wants to double the fuel efficiency of autos in 18 years. McCain, who missed the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) vote of 2007, says he would enforce the new standard of 35 mpg by 2020 but isn’t looking to increase it. Obama voted for the CAFE bill.
7. Obama says offshore drilling will do little to help gasoline prices and was for the ban. He’s since softened his stance, saying he might accept some offshore drilling if it would help get other things he wants, like RES. McCain strongly favors drilling offshore, saying it will help solve the problems of high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil. After McCain announced this new position favoring offshore drilling, and became a cheerleader for the cause, campaign donations from oil and gas went up more than double, or by more than a million dollars.
8. Obama took a stand against a summer repeal of the gas tax, when McCain and Hillary Clinton called for one. Obama called it a gimmick that would not help lower prices.
9. Obama favors a windfall profits tax on big oil companies. He would like to see that money go to people who are struggling to pay for gas. McCain is against a windfall profits tax.
10. Obama picked Sen. Joe Biden as is running mate. Biden has an 83% lifetime score with LCV and proposed a bill in 1986 to deal with global warming. McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has expressed doubt about the human role in causing climate change, filed suit to de-list the polar bear as endangered, and favors drilling in ANWR.
For more on the candidates' environmental views, go to News21 Politics and the Environment, and click on Charging Up the Elections. News 21 is a summer project of Carnegie-Knight fellows at Northwestern University. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the faculty members on the project.)

(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, barackobama.com, johnmccain.com, news21project.org, New York Times, salon.com)

Chicago Climate Action Plan here after long delay, calls for massive community effort to cut GHG

(Photo of Chicago skyline from Flickr and photographer Atelier Teee/Terrence Faircloth)

Weekly Angst: Finally, the long-awaited Chicago Climate Action Plan is here. Mayor Daley unveiled it last week, apparently after convincing the power structure in the city to go along with it.

In many ways it is very ambitious. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gases 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, with an interim marker of 25% reduction by 2020. But success will depend on the actions of business, labor, civic leaders and individual residents, so buy-in is important. And someone will need to be pushing the agenda.

CCAP is more comprehensive than many city plans, covering everything from retrofitted buildings to biking to roof gardens to power plants and beyond. Yet it is sparse on numbers.

The plan calls for a 30% increase in mass transit ridership and suggests some ways that could happen, but offers no dollar amounts or specific numbers. Likewise it calls for more efficient motor vehicle fleets, but gives no specifics – unlike New York City, which seeks a total turnover of taxis to hybrids in 5 years.

There are some numbers in the plan, and I’ll list some of them here. I like numbers because you can measure progress against them.

Strategies to reduce GHG
Overall, the 4 strategies for reducing greenhouse gases call for:
• 30% of the savings to come from making buildings more energy efficient
• 34% to come from clean and renewable energy sources
• 23% from transportation and
• 13% from reduced waste and industrial pollution.

Some other numbers
The plan calls for the following:
• Retrofit 50% of the commercial and industrial building stock (that’s huge if you think about it)
• Improve efficiency at 50% of residential buildings (also major, in a city of 3 million people)
• Upgrade or re-power 21 power plants
• Procure enough renewable energy to reduce electricity emissions 20%
• Double household-scale renewable electricity
• Increase roof gardens to cover 6,000 buildings and plant 1 million trees
• Recycle 90% of waste by 2020.

This last – recycling – is a sore point for Chicago. The blue bag system never worked well and is slowly being shifted over to a suburban-type blue cart system, ward by ward. The plan calls for all blue carts by the end of 2011, and in the meantime, there will be communal recycling boxes throughout the city, within a mile of any residents who don’t yet have blue carts. The plan also touts the city’s toxic and electronic waste center, which is open three days a week for disposal.

City government plans to upgrade building codes and have energy audits for its 500-plus buildings, including schools, with the goal of reducing energy costs 30-40%. The Department of Water Management will put solar panels on the filtration plant and Park District employees will be taught to install solar panels.

Programs and tools
The plan emphasizes tools and programs to help businesses and individuals retrofit their buildings and take other steps to cut emissions. Among them are a “one-stop shop” for financing and technical assistance in retrofitting buildings. The city and CTA have a task force to encourage transit-supportive neighborhoods. Businesses will compete with one another to reduce CO2. And a Chicago Offset Plan will invest in renewable energy, trees and retrofitting.

Do it yourself
The plan also lists steps businesses can take to reduce their emissions, including (a favorite of mine) turning off the lights when they’re not in use, switching to efficient CFL bulbs, lowering the thermostat 3 degrees in winter and raising it 3 degrees in summer, turning off electronics in off-hours, reducing auto trips and driving the most fuel-efficient cars available, using videoconferencing instead of travel, buying green products and recycling.

There’s also a list for residents, which includes: switching to public transit (getting rid of a car could save $400/month) or at least keeping your car tuned up and tires inflated, re-using shopping bags, using CFLs and turning off lights and unplugging electronics when not needed, and planting or adopting a tree.

The plan, available for download at http://chicagoclimateaction.org, includes information about current emissions, expected impacts from climate change and a strategy for adaptation to extreme weather and ecosystem changes that are inevitable.

All-in-all it’s a good blueprint for reduction of greenhouse gases. Now it needs to be implemented. That will require a huge community effort by business, labor, government and residents -- and most of all, leadership from the mayor, just as Mayor Bloomberg is pushing for major change in New York City. A powerful mayor should be able to make it happen.

Would new green economy and renewable energy really deliver more good jobs for U.S.?

(Photo of solar panel installers from Flickr and photographer utt73/John Utter)

Weekly Angst: You hear a lot about how clean energy will bring us more jobs. But will it really do more than just replace the jobs lost as fossil fuels are phased out?

Yes, says a new report, just out from the Center for American Progress and Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

A $100 billion investment in clean energy and efficiency would result in 2 million new jobs in 2 years, whereas a similar investment in old (fossil fuel) energy will only create about 542,000 jobs, says the report. That’s a 3-to-1 difference.

Why is that? Well, green energy and efficiency are more labor intensive and less reliant on machinery and supplies, according to the report, “Green Recovery.”

The new jobs would be created in the following categories:

Retrofitting buildings: All publicly owned buildings, including schools and libraries, would be retrofitted for energy efficiency and Congress would encourage people and businesses to do likewise, using existing programs and tax credits. Any investment would be returned in 3-5 years through smaller utility bills. Jobs created would include electricians, heat and air conditioning installers, carpenters, roofers, insulation workers, truck drivers and building inspectors.

Mass transit and freight rail: While serious expansion of light rail service would take longer than two years, jobs could be created quickly by expanding service on existing bus and subway lines by subsidizing fares. Jobs would include civil engineers, track layers, electricians, welders, metal fabricators, engine assemblers, bus drivers and locomotive engineers.

Smart grid: Investment in energy grid efficiency and expansion would produce jobs over time, and pilot programs could be ramped up with more money in federal matching grants. Jobs would include computer software engineers, electrical engineers, machinists, construction laborers, operating engineers and line installers and repairers.

Renewable energy: If Congress extends investment and production tax credits for alternative energy like wind, solar and next-generation biofuels, those industries will boom here and produce thousands of jobs, including environmental engineers, steel workers, machinists, electrical equipment assemblers, truck drivers, production managers, electrical engineers, installers, chemical engineers, chemists, agricultural workers, purchasing managers and inspectors.

A stimulus to the economy
The report points out that this would be a type of stimulus package, to jump-start a flagging economy, but one that keeps on giving, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting energy bills.

The last economic stimulus package cost $168 billion and once people spent their checks it was over. This would cost less and produce lasting effects.

The plan is endorsed by the Sierra Club, United Steel Workers and Natural Resources Defense Council. It is similar to Barack Obama’s $150 billion 10-year plan for sustainable energy and green jobs.

Other countries, especially in Europe and Asia are pumping up their green economies and supplying most of the solar panels and wind turbines the world demands. So we have an added incentive to stoke up our green economy. If we don’t, the jobs and economic advantage will go overseas.

Join a call to action
Sept. 27 will be a National Day of Action, co-sponsored by many organizations, to call attention to the need for Green Jobs. Hundreds of events will be held across the nation to send a message to Congress to tackle the climate problem and build a green economy with job-intensive solutions like weatherizing homes, installing solar power and engineering a better mass transit system. To find an event near you, go to Green Jobs Now.
(Sources: ClimateWire, Green Recovery report)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kids shortchanged when subject is climate change

(Photo of book one teacher used to try to understand the complex issue of climate change from Flickr and photographer runswithscissors/Ken)

Weekly Angst: One of the state legislatures just passed a law adding climate change to the scientific topics that must be taught in public schools. Then the governor of the state, (drum roll, please) Arnold Schwarzenegger, vetoed it. What was THAT about?

The Governator said he opposed attempts to mandate “specific details or events into areas of instruction, ” but state Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), the bill’s sponsor, denied that the bill “specified exactly how climate change would be taught and would simply have added to 7 others topics the state already requires – issues of such overwhelming importance as "integrated pest management."

Cynthia Thomashow, president of the Center for Environmental Education at Maine’s Unity College, told ClimateWire she suspects adding global warming and the human causes of it is tough for some politicians to swallow. “It means we have to change.”

Thomashow estimates 20-30% of elementary school students in America learn about climate change in any comprehensive way, and maybe 40% of high school students.

There’s not much help from text books. Three top companies, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Prentice Hall and Houghton Mifflin, cover it only in a vague, passing way. And with no emphasis on testing for lessons learned it gets little attention unless teachers or department chairs take the lead.

John Whitsett, president of the National Science Teachers Assn., notes that textbook companies are in business to sell books and “some parts of the country aren’t interested in teaching climate change.”

It was Whitsett’s organization that in 2006 refused to help distribute 50,000 free copies of “An Inconvenient Truth” to schools. He himself told ClimateWire, “We should be teaching the fundamentals of climate, not necessarily this topic.”

The state of California buys about 12% of the nation’s textbook. A change in policy from them could have made a difference in what textbook companies do. But California wasn’t ready to make the leap, so what chance is there with states that won’t teach evolution?

Maybe all is not lost. Textbooks do tend to be out-of-date. It could get 5 degrees hotter before they get it right. But I’m not sure kids pay all that much attention to books now anyway. They’re into movies, TV, videogames and iPods. So we need other tools to teach them what we’re doing to their world and what life will be like when they’re grown up. “An Inconvenient Truth” would have been a good start.

Several government agencies and non-profits are working on materials and curricula of their own.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration unveiled a slick new brochure this spring called “Climate Literacy: The Essentials of Climate Science.” It’s for adults too – something to educate the public about the calamity facing us. But NOAA wants to get the brochures into schools too. So far, it’s distributed just 27,000 copies – that’s less than 1% of the nation’s science teachers. So they’ve got a long way to go. Both NOAA and NASA have grant programs to encourage innovative approaches to teaching climate change.

The non-profit National Wildlife Federation is also working on a booklet and lesson plans. And of course there are plenty of resources on the Internet. One of the best appears to be climatechangeeducation.org.

It looks as if it will be up to teachers and parents to push for our children to be properly educated about this issue. Clearly we can’t leave it to the bureaucracy. Teach climate change at home but also push to get information into the schools. Some people’s children won’t get it at home.
(Special thanks to ClimateWire and reporter Lydia DePillis, the main source for this posting)

Will China become a Green Dragon when it comes to clean energy to fight climate change?

(Photo of wind power in China from Flickr and photographer drs2biz/David Schroeter)


Weekly Angst: All eyes are on China this week. That’s because of the Olympics, but there’s a far more important reason to China-watch. As the world’s fastest-growing economy it has great power for good or evil – when it comes to global warming.

China has passed up the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, releasing 24% of the world’s total, and it’s building an average of one coal-fired power plant a week. That’s scary.

At the same time, it’s leading the world in hydropower, is a major producer of photovoltaic solar panels, and will likely soon lead in making wind turbines.

Its autos are required to have 40% greater fuel economy than ours and it has mandated 15% renewable energy by 2020 – something our own Congress failed to pass.

A report released Aug. 1 by The Climate Group, an independent nonprofit, pulls together information about “China’s Clean Revolution”:
* It leads the world in total installed capacity of renewable energy.
* It is second to Japan in solar photovoltaic production.
* It is likely to be the largest exporter of wind turbines by 2009.
* It has 60% of the world market in solar water heaters.
* It’s the third largest ethanol producer.
* It leads the world in hydroelectric power and is 5th in wind power.
* It spent $12 billion on clean energy last year, second only to Germany, which spent $14 billion (they have similar-sized economies) and more than the United States. For shame.

In 2005, China enacted fuel-economy standards for autos and new-building efficiency design codes that would cut energy use in half. In 2006, in passed a Renewable Energy Law, mandating the purchase of wind, solar and biomass for power plants, and a tax of up to 20% on SUVs.

Seizing green economic advantage
“China’s beginning to unleash a low-carbon dragon,” said Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, which advises government and businesses on how to combat climate change, and co-author of the report.

Clean-energy demand has given the Chinese economy an opportunity and they are forging ahead of us. Tens of thousands of companies are making everything from solar panels to electric bicycles to energy-efficient appliances to wind turbines. The 6 largest solar companies have a market value of $15 billion.

One city, Rizhao, has set out to become a carbon-neutral showcase and is half-way there, according to a recent story on ClimateWire. Highrise buildings will collect solar power during the 260 days of sunshine in the oceanside city, which plans to close down cement, paper and steel businesses that use coal. Rizhao shares this goal with a small number of other cities: Arendal, Norway; Vancouver, Canada; and Vaxjo, Sweden.

Coal still main energy source
All is not blue skies though. Fossil fuels provide most of the power, and if trends continue, 70% of China’s new electric power by 2030 will come from coal, the Climate Group report said. So by that year China will be adding an estimated 4 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, more than the European Union’s total now.

But China realizes it can’t sustain the kind of dirty industrial development the West had and must look for a better, cleaner way. Motivation comes from the enormous air-pollution problem and shortage of natural resources in a country trying to lift its population (one-fifth of the world) out of poverty.

China depends heavily on imports, and the high cost of fuel has made renewable energy far more attractive, The Climate Group’s China director, Changhua Wu, told the BBC.

“In China we are concerned about the speed of growth of emissions. It’s really scary,” Wu said. The government wants to stabilize emissions by 2020, mainly through efficiency, renewable energy and electric cars, she said, but more policy incentives are needed.

As a growing world power, and leading emitter of greenhouse gases, China will be one of the most important countries in seeking an international solution to climate change. But China has taken the position that the developing world, which was responsible for the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases until recently, must show its sincerity and ability to cut its own GHG before expecting new economies to do likewise.

“If they are not able to do it with the technology available to them, then is it reasonable to expect China and India to do it?” asked Wu.
(Sources: The Climate Group, BBC News, ClimateWire, Reuters)

Unregulated ships spew greenhouse gases into atmosphere and untreated waste into ocean

(Photo of Chinese freighter from Flickr and photographer fusionpanda/David Grant)

Weekly Angst: When I was on an idyllic cruise in French Polynesia eight years ago, I was astounded at how clear the water was. I’d never seen anything like it. Imagine my dismay to learn our ship was dumping all kinds of waste in the water, befouling this pristine sea. Cruise ships continue to use the ocean as a dumping ground and that’s a huge problem addressed by Friends of the Earth in its latest magazine (see summary below).

But there’s another problem – one I wasn’t aware of in 2000 when I marveled at the clear waters off Bora Bora and Moorea.

Ships help cause global warming.

Shipping worldwide released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide last year, according to the International Maritime Organization. That’s equivalent to the CO2 given off by 205 million cars (more than all the cars in the U.S.).

Shipping emits 3% of all CO2 emissions. If it were a country, it would rank No. 6, between Japan and Germany.

With world trade expanding, shipping has grown about 5% a year for the past 3 decades and is likely to continue to do so, according to a new report by Oceana , an international advocacy group. Ships carry 90% of all trade, with more than 90,000 vessels plying the seas, the report says.

Ships don’t just release carbon dioxide, they also spew black carbon (soot), nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide, all of which add to climate change. The emissions are especially damaging to the fast-warming Arctic, and problems will likely accelerate as the Northwest Passage opens up to more shipping. Soot, for example, absorbs sunlight and can speed the melting of snow and ice.

No regulations
With virtually no regulation, ships are using the cheapest and dirtiest kind of fuel and doing little to become more efficient. Some quick and easy fixes could help the situation, says the Oceana report.

Switching from the worst fuel available, residual oil, to marine diesel or marine gas oil, could reduce CO2 and nitrogen oxides about 5%, particulate matter 63% and nitrous oxide 91%, the report says. Better fuel would also allow for placement of emission controls that would further reduce GHG.

Just slowing down could make a big difference. Ships burn fuel based on speed rather than weight, so cutting back 10% on speed would save 23% in fuel emissions, the report says.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have financial incentives for reducing speeds within 20 nautical miles of the ports and are getting 80% compliance. With 100% compliance they figure they could cut particulates (including black carbon) in half and reduce nitrogen oxides 37%.

Ships also could cut off their diesel engines when in port and hook up to power lines on shore to furnish electricity.

The industry also could work on more efficient designs for both the vessels and their engines, the report says.

And there is now some experimentation with adding sails or kites to capture wind power on the high seas. That could provide a carbon-free energy boost.

Oceana calls for the EPA to regulate ship emissions within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and the International Maritime Organization to regulate worldwide shipping, because of the substantial impact ships have on climate change.

A coalition of states, environmental groups, government agencies and New York City has served notice to the EPA that it plans to sue the agency for failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions coming from ships and airplanes. The action follows petitions last October and December that were ignored.

Earthjustice will represent the coalition in the lawsuit against the EPA. Coalition members include Oceana, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biodiversity, the states of Connecticut and New Jersey, the California Air Resources Board, the California Southern Coast Air Quality Management District and the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Other cruise ship problems
In addition to emitting heat-trapping gases, the world’s cruise ships are using the oceans as dumping grounds. As long as they are 3 miles offshore they can and do dump raw sewage directly in the water. When you flush on a ship, that’s where it goes. Within 3 miles they are supposed to use a rudimentary treatment device, but there is little monitoring. They also dump wastewater from sinks, showers, galleys and laundries; oily bilge water; and hazard waste from dry-cleaning and photo processing as well as batteries, paints and fluorescent lights.

How much waste do cruise ships discharge? According to Friends of the Earth, a large ship in one week generates approximately:
• 210,000 gallons of blackwater (human waste)
• 1 million gallons of graywater (showers, galleys, etc.)
• 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water
• More than 130 gallons of hazardous waste.

If that outrages you and you want to take action to help get this dumping under control, call your reps in Washington and tell them to support the Clean Cruise Ship Act of 2008 (more likely to pass in 2009), spearheaded by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)

Somehow, it’s easier to get exorcised over the dumping – something we can see – than greenhouse gases, which we can’t see. But they’re both a problem for our planet, our oceans, and ultimately ourselves.
(Sources: Greenwire, E&E News PM, Oceana, Friends of the Earth)

Draining wetlands could double greenhouse gases

(Photo of Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration in California from Flickr and and photographer Mollivan Jon)


Weekly Angst: Add wetlands to the list if things that can cause global warming. Swamps and marshes are great carbon sinks, storing about 20% of the carbon and methane on the Earth’s land surface.

But as wetlands dry up from climate change, or are drained for development or agriculture, those greenhouse gases have the potential to do as much damage as industrial emissions. This was a topic of discussion and concern for 700 experts from 28 countries who met at last week’s 8th International Wetlands Conference in Brazil.

Wetlands hold some 770 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, equal to what's now in the atmosphere. And emissions from wetland have the potential to negate all other steps to stop global warming if we don’t act to preserve these places so essential to the planet’s health.

Bad image
Wetlands get little respect. They have long been seen as useless and yucky, interfering with development, farming and other civilized things. So about 60% of wetlands across the world have been destroyed in the last century. Europe drained 90% of its wetlands for farming, the U.S. has drained more than half of its, and the California coastal region destroyed about 95%.

We know wetlands serve as a habitat for wildlife. We also know that in coastal areas they can buffer against hurricanes. We learned that when Katrina devastated New Orleans. If only the wetlands had been left in place, the impact of the storm wouldn’t have been as great.

Wetlands serve as natural “horizontal levees,” that can prevent flooding by storing floodwater. The recent floods in the Midwest reminded scientists that the Mississippi River once could store 60 days of floodwater in its wetlands, where now it can only store 12 days’ worth.

Wetlands – which include marshes, swamps, river deltas, peat bogs, mangroves and river flood plains – produce 25% of the world’s food, purify water and recharge aquifers.

Some thawing of the Arctic wetlands permafrost is probably inevitable at this point, so efforts to stop draining wetlands in more temperate and tropical climates is essential – not to mention restoration.

Restoration
Some restoration projects are under way – in the Everglades and on the Louisiana coast, with each one costing upwards of $5 billion. But it’s much cheaper to preserve the existing wetlands than have to rebuild them, scientists remind us.

In Southern California, the recently restored Bolsa Chica wetlands are now bursting with birds and fish. The project cost $147 million and culminated 40 years of struggle between environmentalists and developers. Part of the problem was a duck blind constructed by hunters. Now the wetlands connect to the Pacific Ocean basin, as they should.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire, Reuters )

Deforestation: inevitable as population surges?

(Photo of deforestation in Brazil from Flickr and photographer [cas]/Sotto)

Weekly Angst: World population growth, up from 6 billion to 9 billion (that’s 50%) in the first half of this century will likely lead to cutting down forests to provide more food, fuel and timber, two new reports say. The Rights and Resources Initiative, a global coalition of environmental and conservation NGOs (non-governmental organizations) expects land the size of 12 Germanys will to be cleared between now and 2030.

“Arguably we are on the verge of the last great global land grab,” said Andy White, co-author of one of the reports, called “Seeing People Through the Trees.” And this is going to cause conflict, as well as global warming.

Governments still own most of the forests, said the second report, “From Exclusion to Ownership,” but have been unable to prevent industrial incursions. In Brazil, soy and sugar cane for biofuels are likely to take another 247 million acres from the Amazon rainforest by 2020.

There are several problems intersecting here.

Population growth and economics
First is the rapid and relentless growth of population on the Earth. In 1950 the population stood at just 2.5 billion. By 2000 it was 6 billion, more than double. This week it is 6.7 billion and by 2050, the UN estimates, the number will reach close to 9 billion (8.9B if you want to be exact).

So not only are developing countries trying to lift their people out of poverty with their own industrial revolutions, but there are increasingly more people to lift. More food, more fuel, more plastics, more cars and more electricity will be needed. (China, by the way, points out that without its one-child policy its population would be far bigger than it is.)

Then there’s the difficulty of maintaining forest in its natural state when money is to be made from clearing it to plant crops, grow cattle and sell timber. Most of the forest likely to be cleared is in developing countries, the reports said.

The Amazon rainforest
The Amazon rainforest is a case in point. The largest in the world, it is often called “the lungs of the world” because it consumes CO2 and produces 20% of the Earth’s oxygen. It contains 1/10 of the carbon dioxide stored in land ecosystems on the planet.

After 3 years of declining deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (due to enforcement and the low price of soybeans), the tide turned last summer, and an estimated 1,096 square miles were lost in May alone.

Brazil is No. 4 in emission of greenhouse gases, not because of fossil fuel plants, but mainly (70%) because of deforestation.

Brazilian officials, under world scrutiny, say outsiders, including NGOs, are grabbing their land, stealing medicinal plants, spying and logging illegally. They say they fear the outside world is after their considerable resources.

Other forests at risk
The Amazon isn’t the only place forest is disappearing. Parts of Asia are losing more than 10,000 square miles of forest every year.

And Canada is logging its boreal forests (mainly evergreens) at such a rate that, combined with permafrost melt, it could produce a “carbon bomb,” according to Greenpeace. A report by the University of Toronto, “Turning up the Heat,” said a 1993 study showed Canada’s large swath of boreal forests stored 186 billion metric tons of carbon (27 times what the world emits from fossil fuels in a year), two-thirds of it stored in the soil. When trees are destroyed, not only is carbon released from them, but also from the soil that is exposed.

The province of Ontario last week promised to preserve 55 million acres, or at least half, of its pristine boreal forests from future development, keeping it as an undisturbed ecosystem and carbon sink. What about the other half? Chainsaw massacre?

More research, more regulation
The interaction between forests and climate change is complex. Droughts can damage forests and so can wildfires and pests brought on by warmer temperatures. The Amazon is threatened by increasingly frequent droughts. A Smithsonian research study going on now on an island in the Panama Canal suggests that as temperatures rise, trees slow their growth and absorb less CO2. There also is the issue that trees, as they get old, reach a point where they don’t take in as much carbon.

Clearly there needs to be more research, and a worldwide agreement to save or replace the forests we have – and not lose more. World officials meeting in Bali last December agreed credits should be given for saving rainforest, a step in the right direction. The details need to be worked out between now and 2012, when a post-Kyoto agreement would begin. And likely the wealthy nations are going to have to pony up.
(Sources: Thomson Reuters, PlanetArk, Greenwire, ClimateWire, State of the Planet 2006-2007, U.S. Census Bureau)

Antiquated electricity grid won't be able to carry renewable energy to customers

(Photo of transmission lines from Flickr and photographers Vicki and Chuck Rogers)

Weekly Angst: A wind farm can be built in about a year. But it takes 5-10 years to construct the high-voltage power lines that will transmit the electricity to where it is needed.

And the lack of current capacity (excuse the pun) in transmission lines is blocking growth of renewable energy here, especially wind.

Many renewable projects simply won’t happen if policymakers don’t expand the power grid to accommodate them, alternative energy executives warned last week at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York.

What happens with transmission “will define whether 2% or 20% of U.S. electricity is renewable,” said Dan Reicher, the executive in charge of Google’s green push.

Transmission lines aren’t a sexy subject, but I’m sure you’ll agree there’s not much point in building a wind farm or solar plant if it can’t get connected to a grid. And that is the risk here. Substantially more construction of towers and power lines is needed to for the U.S, to reach a goal of 15% renewable energy, a target passed by the House but not the Senate.

In Minnesota, for example, if just one-third of the applications for wind farms are granted, the 7,500 megawatts of power they would create for the Twin Cities would exceed the 2,000MW capacity of the grid.

Why it takes so long
One problem is that the ideal places for large wind farms (Midwest plains) and solar installations (Mojave Desert) are far from the cities where the electricity is needed.

And it costs $1.5 million per mile to put up high-voltage transmission lines. While that expense ultimately is passed on to the consumer, utilities are reluctant to build the lines before a wind farm or solar plant is built – and vice versa. So a chicken-and-egg struggle is going on here.

Also the permitting process can take forever. One issue is where to put the lines. Nobody wants them.

In California, there’s a battle over San Diego Gas & Electric’s plan to build a 150-mile transmission line from a desert solar plant to San Diego through a state park. Environmentalists argue it would ruin the park, while the utility says it can’t meet California’s renewable requirement without it.

A lag in investment
Investment in the electricity grid was neglected from 1975-2000, as funding dropped from $5 billion a year to just $2 billion by the turn of the century. Since then increased demand has sparked investment of about $60 billion, but the system is antiquated, causing such problems as the 2003 blackout in the Northeast and rolling brownouts in California. Lack of capacity remains a serious drawback that may well prevent states with mandated renewable electricity standards (RES)from reaching their goals.

Some in Congress are calling for “national renewable energy zones” to reduce bottlenecks in delivering power. Bills offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would have the government identify zones with the capability to produce significant amounts of renewable energy but insufficient transmission capacity. Inslee’s bill would spread the cost of construction and requires the president to identify specific high-voltage lines for renewal within a year of establishing a national zone.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act allows the federal government to designate “national interest electric transmission corridors” where it could extend needed lines despite state and local objections. But there is resistance from states and environmentalists.

Some states and regions are searching for their own solutions. Texas, the state with the most wind power, has such zones, originally through the Western Governors Association, now in a project with the Department of Energy, which will help it bring wind to Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico are taking similar steps.

Grid should be high priority
NASA climate scientist James Hansen said last week that the next president needs to make it a priority to create a nationwide low-loss electrical grid so the country can replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The technology exists to bury direct-current high-voltage lines, he said.

Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says it’s important for the next president to work with governors to get rid of arcane and conflicting state rules and open up the grid so clean energy can compete fairly with fossil fuels.

The energy sector “needs an initiative like the 1996 Telecommunications Act,” which required open access to phone lines, Kennedy said. As with telephones, he said, eliminating constraints will encourage investment, and utilities and entrepreneurs will revitalize the grid. Like Hansen, he argues for direct current, saying too much energy is lost in alternating current.

The transmission grid also needs to use “smart” technology to send electricity where and when it is needed, experts say.

Demand for electricity is expected to grow 40% by 2030, according to North American Electric Reliability Council. To meet that demand with renewable sources we must take action immediately to provide an adequate grid.

(Sources: PlanetArk, Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E Daily, USA Today, The Guardian, Vanity Fair)

China struggles with growth and greenhouse gases: the good, the bad and the Hummer

(Photo of power plant in China from Flickr and photographer Sinosplice/John Pasden)

Weekly Angst: Last week we learned China significantly passed up the U.S. in CO2 emissions – by 14%. With 80% reliance on coal for power and a fast-growing economy, China is likely to continue pouring the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere unless drastic steps are taken. So it was of interest that the U.S. and China signed a climate agreement last week – and that the government raised its fixed gasoline prices.

The good ...
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (known as an environmentalist when he ran Goldman Sachs) and Vice Premier Wang Qishan signed a “10-year Energy and Environmental Cooperation Framework” in Washington. They said businesses, government and research universities would work together on “making necessary technological advances to preserve the health of our planet.” They didn’t give targets to cap emissions but said they’ll jointly develop cleaner technologies, policies and incentives. They also will discuss steps to diversify power sources and develop alternatives to fossil fuels for transportation, as well as safeguard clean water and wildlife. A few other hopeful signs:

* GreenGen, a subsidiary of the state-owned China Huaneng Group, is building an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) demonstration power plant that will be more efficient and eventually capture 80% of its CO2. Since coal is relatively cheap and plentiful, China is likely to use huge amounts for the foreseeable future, so carbon capture and sequestration is pretty much essential to cutting down on CO2 emissions.

* China has a goal of 15% renewable energy by 2020 and 25% by 2025. Today, it gets about 8.5% from sources such as wind, solar and hydropower.

* Energy conservation became a national priority last April, which means managers in state-owned plants ignore it at their peril.

* The Chinese government is working with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Asian Development Bank to improve conservation in a country where poor execution has lead to enormous energy waste.

The bad …

Last year China added an average of 2 new coal-fired power plants a week. Hundreds more are slated for the future, even with a renewable portfolio.

GreenGen’s investment in the IGCC project, which could be the first of many, is looking for international support in the new technique of capture and sequestration. In particular, it was looking to the U.S. for its now-cancelled FutureGen demonstration project, which is now more likely to be a series of small carbon-capture projects. Whether that will dampen the Chinese enthusiasm for CCS remains to be seen.

In international discussions, China continues to reject mandatory caps on emissions. Its current 5 Year Plan set a target of a 10% cut in energy use per unit of GDP (or “intensity”) by 2010. GDP has been rising about 10% a year, so that means energy use will continue to grow – and so will emissions.


… and the Hummer
While Americans are scaling back on auto size, because of the rising cost of gas, and General Motors is thinking of selling or changing its Hummer, wealthy Chinese are falling in love with it. In Beijing alone, 15 car dealers are selling Hummers and a couple of local auto companies are making similar military-style vehicles, which are increasingly popular with urban-dwellers who see them as status symbols, according to the Financial Times.

Demand for SUVs is increasing too, up 40% in the first 4 months of this year, as well as for luxury imports.

Although China is the second largest importers of oil (after the U.S.), and demand for oil there is increasing about 8% a year, gasoline and diesel are subsidized so until this week they were costing about 40% of what we pay at the pump.

Late this week Beijing raised the price of gas about 17% to $3.06 per gallon, according to Greenwire. (Bloomberg says the official price is under $3 and the New York Times says its $3.83, so something’s being lost in translation. I’m going with the Greenwire number, which cites China's National Development and Reform Commission as its source.) U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson had recommended raising the price to curb demand. Under the old price, Chinese refineries were losing money because they had to pay more for crude than they could get for the gas. Diesel prices were raised as well.

Interestingly, the average fuel-economy mandated for cars in China is considerably better than ours, about 35 mpg, which is what we’re aiming for by 2020.

To read more and see a chart of vehicle sales in China, go to The Financial Times.

(Sources: E&E PM, Greenwire, The Financial Times, Bloomberg.)

High gas prices driving Americans to more fuel-efficient smaller cars, and to trains

(Photo of the cost of filling up a F-150 pickup, with graffiti, from Flickr and photographer ugas1/Christy C)

Weekly Angst: With the price of gasoline climbing ever higher, Americans are seeing green. Whether it’s all economics or in part concern about global warming, train ridership is up and sales of motor vehicles are shifting from trucks and SUVs to compact cars, all to the benefit of the environment. The trend is hard to miss. Here are some news items from the past two weeks:

Train ridership up; Amtrak funding bill faces Bush veto
Amtrak ticket sales rose 15.6% in May, over a year ago, and officials say ridership is up about 11% for the year. They attribute half the increase to high gas prices. Train advocates are asking more federal money to help trains compete with airplanes here. About 1% of passenger miles are by train in the U.S., while France, Britain and Germany see 6-8% and Japan 18%. Amtrak is slow and inefficient while France, Germany and Japan have high-speed trains on dedicated tracks with special signals, allowing them to go 150-185 mph. A House-approved Amtrak bill faces a veto from the White House because it doesn’t contain reforms. Dem presidential candidate Barack Obama said he’d fight for funding with reforms. GOP candidate John McCain has in the past voted against subsidies for Amtrak. (Sources: Reuters/New York Times)

Train industry asks incentives to expand nation’s rail system
The railroad industry defended recent profits before a Senate panel last week and asked for incentives to expand rail nationwide. Saying rail profits are lower than most industries, the Association of American Railroads pointed to the environmental benefits of trains, noting that they are 3 times more fuel-efficient than trucks. An industry ad campaign says freight trains can carry a ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of diesel. (Source: E&E Daily)

GM to close 4 truck plants, re-evaluate its Hummer
General Motors announced it will close 4 North American plants that make pickup trucks and SUVs and will add a shift to 2 plants that make smaller cars. GM reaffirmed its commitment to its plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt, and said it would re-evaluate the Hummer.

Ford Motor Co. says it will cut back on trucks and SUVs too
Ford also is following demand and cutting production of trucks and sport utility vehicles and focusing more on smaller cars like the Focus and Edge. The F-150 pickup, which has long driven profits for the company, is in less demand. Further cuts may be required, officials said.

GM to help set up filling station for hydrogen fuel-cell cars
General Motors is partnering with Clean Energy Fuels Corp. on a hydrogen fuel-cell refueling station near Los Angeles International Airport, as the first step toward a network of such stations in California. For now, it will be used by test drivers for the fuel-cell Chevy Equinox, expected to be for sale by 2014 at the latest. Fuel-cell cars emit only water vapor. (Sources: Greenwire and Reuters/New York Times)

Toyota plugs its electric/gas plug-in hybrid, expected in 2010
Toyota said it will introduce a plug-in hybrid with a next-generation lithium-ion battery in Japan, the U.S. and Europe in 2010. Sales of smaller Toyota cars rose sharply last month, the company said, with the Corolla up 17%. Hybrid sales are flat – for the simple reason that they are in very short supply, due to a backlog in getting parts. Toyota plans to open plants for hybrids in Thailand and Australia, to sell cars to the developing world. (Sources: Greenwire, Bloomberg)

Industry leaders ask for federal help in jump-starting plug-ins
Top auto officials told a forum in Washington, D.C., this week that U.S. companies need government support for R&D to compete with Asia, which dominates in development of batteries for electric plug-ins. There’s also a need for consumer tax breaks to encourage early adopters to buy this type of car and break down resistance to something new. (Bills stalled in the Senate call for such consumer incentives.) With that help, plugs-in, which are technically feasible, can become a booming market, said GM President for North America Tom Clarke. In the same week, the Bush administration announced a $30 million R&D program for plug-ins. (Source: Greenwire)

Chicago considers switching all taxis to hybrid by 2014
Following the lead of New York City, key Chicago Ald. Ed Burke (14th ) and Transportation Committee Chair Tom Allen (38th) want all taxi cabs in the city to be hybrids by Jan. 1, 2014. Cabs are replaced every 4 years. The two said they want, starting next year, to mandate that all replacement cabs be either hybrid or run on alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas, biodiesel or hydrogen. At this point there are 50 hybrid taxis on the street. I rode in one last week and the driver was please it cost him about a third as much for gas. (Chicago Sun-Times)

This is the kind of movement we need, away from gas guzzlers. Let’s hope it continues, even if high prices are a pain in the pocketbook. (Easy enough for me to say. I have a Prius.) Europe’s petrol prices are much higher than ours and they have long had smaller cars and better trains.

Ten key Dem Senators had problems with global warming bill -- what happens next?

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Gawnesco/Scott Gawne.)

Weekly Angst: Following a 48-36 vote (60 were needed) to end debate on the Climate Security Act Friday, 10 keys Dems, 9 of whom voted with the leadership, said they had problems with the bill that would have kept them from ultimately voting for it.

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the 10 said their states would be the most adversely affected by the bill, as written. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin (Mich.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Jim Webb (Va.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said they favored a cap-and-trade bill but it must “ensure consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship.” The following issues need to be addressed, they said:
* Make sure there’s a short-term cushion to ensure technologies will be there to help meet early emissions targets.
* Fold state laws into the federal system.
* Expand agriculture and forestry offsets.
Advocates are now looking to a new President and new Congress to get a cap-and-trade bill passed. With Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) retiring, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he is looking for a new partner to continue working on the Climate Security Act.

Next on the Senate agenda
While the global warming bill may be dead for now, Senate leadership is moving on to other energy bills: the unfinished business of passing an extension of renewable tax credits (approved by the House) and a “windfall profits” bill to tax major oil companies and address “price gouging.”

The renewable tax credit extentions (HR6049) would continue wind farm production credits 1 year and solar energy investment credits 6 years, as well as continue credits for other renewable energy sources and efficiency. The credits are due to expire the end of this year and without them renewable projects face an uncertain future.

The windfall profits bill (S3044) will probably come up first and is intended to address high oil and gasoline prices. In addition to a new tax and the repeal of tax breaks for major oil companies, the bill has a price-gouging provision and also allows the Justice Department to bring anti-trust actions against OPEC. This one is unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and President Bush has threatened a veto.

And across the way in the House
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected a GOP challenge to debate global warming on the floor of the House before the 4th of July and said any activity this year will be in Energy Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.)’s committee. She indicated chances for passing a strong bill will be much better next year.

Dingell has announced his subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, headed by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), will hold hearings on the bill that just died in the Senate, as well as the two strong bill introduced in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Waxman’s bill calls for an emissions cut of 80% by 2050, with 100% of the credits auctioned, and Markey mandates an 85% reduction, with 94% of credits auctioned. Dingell and Boucher are expected to produce their own bill at some point.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Cost of doing nothing about global warming: up to $3.6 trillion a year for losses in the U.S.

(Photo of damage from Hurricane Katrina from Flickr and and photographer SAsqrd/Steve.)

Weekly Angst: Every time I hear that it will cost too much to fight climate change and will “wreck the economy,” I say to myself (or sometimes out loud), “But what will it cost if we DON'T do anything?” So I was happy to see that Tufts University has just released a report on the cost of doing nothing, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The study determined that continuing business-as-usual in terms of greenhouse gases could end up costing the U.S. economy as much as $3.6 trillion a year by the end of the century.

They also estimated that the cost of four major climate change impacts – coastal hurricanes, real-estate damage from rising seas, increased energy costs to meet hot temperatures, and water scarcity – would rise over time and could cost $1.9 trillion annually by 2100. The breakdown for that year:
• Hurricane damages $422 billion
• Real estate losses: $360 billion
• Increased energy costs: $141 billion
• Water costs: $950 billion

Other hard-hit sectors include tourism and agriculture.

“The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate Center.

The report predicted an average temperature increase of 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the U.S. in the next century and 18 degrees in Alaska, which is warming faster. Seas were predicted to rise 23 inches by 2050 and 45 inches by 2100, engulfing coastlines.

If global warming continues unchecked, the analysis found, New York City will have the climate of Las Vegas, and San Francisco will feel like New Orleans.

“Climate change is on a collision course with the U.S. economy,” warned Frank Ackerman, lead author of the study. The researchers used a new British model for figuring overall costs. They looked at economic losses, non-economic damages and the increased risk of catastrophe.

Climate disasters
And speaking of the increased risk of catastrophe, an op-ed piece in the New York Times Saturday by Charles M. Blow pointed out that we’re already experiencing more costly extreme weather disasters.

There have been four times as many weather disasters worldwide in the past 30 years as in the preceding 75, he said, citing the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The U.S. has suffered most of them.

Of the 30 costliest hurricanes in the U.S. history, 10 have occurred since 2000, according to the National Hurricane Center. The worst year, of course, was 2005 (Katrina et al), with an estimated $39 billion loss.

Report’s recommendations
But getting back to the Tufts/NRDC report – it concludes with three overriding recommendations for action:
1. Enact comprehensive mandatory limits on global warming pollution to stimulate investment and guarantee that we meet emission targets.
2. Overcome barriers to investment in energy efficiency.
3. Accelerate development and deployment of emerging clean energy technologies.

Do it and do it now. Then we can avoid most of these costs (not all, though, because GHG in the atmosphere now will be there for many years.) And, of course, it’s not just financial cost. Think about the human cost of all these disasters. It’s mind-boggling.

Download the report.

(Sources: NRDC, Greenwire, New York Times)