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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fed report links global warming to extreme weather, predicts more floods and droughts

(Photo of flood in downtown Cedar Rapids from Flickr and The U.S. Geological Survey and photographer Don Becker.)

News Update 1: In the midst of record flooding in the Midwest, causing at least $3 billion in crop loss alone, and an almost decade-long drought in the Southwest, a new government report links extreme weather with human-produced heat-trapping gases and has some dire predictions for more deadly weather events in the future. The report, “Weather Extremes in a Changing Climate,” released last week, expressed high confidence that extreme rainfalls, such as the ones that caused the floods, as well as intense droughts and more heat waves will hit the U.S. as temperatures continue to rise. The rains are expected primarily in the North and the droughts in the Southwest. The changes are already apparent, the report said. It also predicted stronger and more frequent hurricanes (though there is some scientific disagreement about that), winter storms with higher winds and waves by century’s end, and disappearing summer sea ice that could erode shorelines in Alaska and Canada. The report, led by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was an acknowledgment by the Bush Administration that global warming is and will cause catastrophic weather. But do something about it? Naaa. (Sources: ClimateWire,
the Daily Green, washingtonpost.com, CNN)

Melting Arctic ice can signal permafrost thaw and more greenhouse gas emissions

News Update 2: Last summer saw a record Arctic sea ice melt and another record is forecast for this year, according to a new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). When the sea ice melts, the temperature over land heats up as far as 900 miles away, the study found, and is likely to thaw permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Russia. Permafrost is the long-frozen earth beneath the top layer of ground. When it thaws it releases methane, a greenhouse gas much more potent than CO2. It also can cause the collapse of infrastructure, such as highways, houses, oil rigs and pipelines. Last August-October the temperature over land in the west Arctic was unusually warm, more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit above the average for 1978-2006. Rapid sea ice thaw could lead to rapid permafrost thaw, the scientists said. (Source: Reuters PlanetArk)

Honda starts producing hydrogen fuel-cell cars

(Photo of Honda FCX Clarity from Flickr and photographer BBQ Junkie/Luis Ramirez)

News Update 3: Honda is betting that the future is in fuel cells, and is starting production of 200 FCX Clarity hydrogen-powered cars that will emit only water vapor (which by-the-way is also a heat-trapping gas, but stays in the atmosphere a much shorter time than carbon dioxide and does less damage.) The auto company announced actress Jamie Lee Curtis will be among the first of the 200 drivers, who will lease the new cars for $600 a month for 3 years. The FCX can run about 270 miles before it needs refueling, which of course brings up the main drawback. There aren’t many (if any) refueling stations around, though one is being built near the LA airport. Honda has one solution to that problem – a home energy station that generates hydrogen from natural gas and can also heat and cool the home. To see the car and learn more, go to the Honda Web site. (Sources: Greenwire, CNN, Honda)

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.)

New House global warming bill could bypass Energy Chair Dingell, causing jurisdiction dispute

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Tolka Rover/Eamonn O'Brien-Strain)

Washington Report 1: Three members of the House Ways and Means Committee are about to introduce a cap-and-trade bill to cut greenhouse gases 80% (below 1990 levels) by 2050 and auction 85% of the credits. Democrats Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Ed Blumenauer (Ore.) and Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said they will give the Treasury Department, not the EPA, authority over key parts of the bill. That means Ways and Means can have jurisdiction. The bill has 17 co-sponsors including Rahm Emanuel (lll.) the 4th most powerful Democrat. While W&M Chair Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is expected to hold hearings this summer, the bill is not likely to go to the floor until a new president and Congress are in place, to give it a better chance. Energy Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.), an ally of the auto industry, has had jurisdiction over global warming legislation for the past 18 months, during which time he has issued 4 white papers and held subcommittee hearings, but made no substantial progress. This is not the first effort to bypass Dingell. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a cap-and-trade bill earlier this month that went to Ways & Means, as well as Energy and 8 other committees. Dingell and his colleague on the Energy Committee, Rick Boucher (D-Va.) responded that while they welcome the thoughts and work of other committees, they will take the lead on any cap-and-trade legislation. (Source: E&E PM)

Emanuel, Markey ask for speed-up in fuel efficiency

Washington Report 2: In a letter to the Bush Administration this week, Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked the president to pick up the pace in fuel-economy standards, as a draft EPA memo showed is possible. The memo, leaked to the Wall Street Journal, revealed that EPA staff thought that with hybrids and new technology autos could average better than 35 mpg between 2020 and 2025. The letter from Emanuel and Markey asked for a maximum effort to reach 35 mpg by 2015. (The CAFE standards passed by Congress last year mandated 35 by 2020, with some allowance for flex-fuel cars that would lower the real amount to about 34 mpg). Some Congressmen fear the EPA administrator will ignore the staff recommendations, as he has done in other matters in the past. (Source: E&E News PM)

Renewable energy tax credit extensions fail again

Washington Report 3: Senate leadership again this week failed to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to extend tax credits for renewable energy and efficiency. After tweaking the bill, they picked up 2 progressive Republicans, Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Susan Collins (Me.), since last week but most of the GOP caucus was steadfast in its opposition to other taxes being used to pay for the extensions. The vote was 52-44, with 4 likely ‘yea’ votes missing – Byrd, Kennedy, Clinton and Obama. With them, it still would have fallen 4 votes short. The next step is uncertain. Republicans don’t oppose extending the credits but rather paying for them with other taxes affecting offshore and international businesses. The tax credits expire at the end of this year. (Source: E&E News PM)

China’s CO2 emissions 14% higher than U.S. in 2007

(Photo of coal stored in Beijing power plant from Flickr and photographer kafka4prez/JJ W)

News Update 1: China emitted 14% more carbon dioxide last year that the U.S., according to a Dutch report published last week. China, which passed up the U.S. in 2006, saw its emissions rise 8% year over year, while those in the U.S. grew 1.8%. China’s emissions came mostly from burning of fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas; its electricity is 80% coal-fired. China was responsible for 24% of new CO2 emissions, compared with 21% from the U.S., 12% from the EU’s 15 oldest countries, 8% from India and 6% from Russia. The U.S. still ranks highest in per-capita emissions however – with the typical American's carbon footprint 19.4 metric tons. Russia is next with 11.8 tons, followed by the EU 8.6, China 5.1 and India 1.8. The study did not include carbon emissions from deforestation. (Source: Greenwire)

Australia can meet energy needs with solar power

(Photo of solar station in Australia from Flickr and photographer Richard Gifford)


News Update 2: Australia can harness enough energy from the sun to meet all its energy needs, a respected Australian National University scientist told a climate conference last week. All that is needed is the political will and ability to overcome entrenched interests, said physicist Mike Rapauch. Australia must cut its emissions 80-90% by 2050, he said. A second scientist, who agreed, said he sees a growing gap between what scientists say is necessary to avoid climate change calamity and what economists say is feasible. "It is a damning indictment of our collective vacillation, inaction and deliberate stalling to date," said Barry Brook, director of the University of Adelaide’s climate research program, "that in facing up to this problem -- with Australia and the United States being two prominent curmudgeons -- we are facing the stark choice between a bad situation, a catastrophic situation and a civilization-terminating situation." (Source: Canberra Times)

Climate scientists have breakthrough on ‘scrubber’ to remove carbon in atmosphere

(Photo of coal-fired power plant from Flickr and photographer d1v1d/David S.)
News Update 3: A team of scientists have made a breakthrough in developing a device that would suck carbon out of the air. They expect to have the carbon “scrubber” operational within 2 years, at an initial cost of less than $200,000 a year, said Klaus Lackner of Columbia U., lead scientist on the project. Each device would be able to absorb about 1 ton of CO2 per day. To put that in perspective, that’s the amount of CO2 emitted for each passenger on a London-New York flight. So millions of these devices would be needed to suck up a substantial amount of carbon. And then disposal of the CO2 would be an issue. But Lachner thinks this discovery is important because he doesn’t believe people will stop using fossil fuels, and maybe the scrubbers could help keep global warming from reaching dangerous levels. (Source: The Guardian)

PM says 1,000 nuclear plants needed worldwide

(Photo of inside Dungeness nuclear power station from Flickr and photographer gravyphig/Graham Smith)

News Update 4: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants his country to play a major role in an effort to build 1,000 nuclear plants worldwide to end the global “addiction to oil.” He also anticipates a 7-fold increase in renewable sources, such as wind, solar and biomass. Nuclear must be part of the global warming solution, he said, and communities would get government funding to bury the waste . Green groups attacked the plan as “bribery.” Britain already has problems burying existing nuclear waste. (Source: The Independent)

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.

Windfall profits tax on oil, tax incentives for renewable energy both fail in Senate this week

(Photo of oil rig in Catalina Channel from Flickr and photographer arbyreed)


Washington Report 1: The repeal of $17 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies and “price gouging” penalties for unseemly oil profits garnered only 51 of the 60 votes needed to get to a vote Tuesday in the Senate. Also going down to defeat was yet another bill to extend tax credits due to expire this year on renewable energy and efficiency. On the first bill, GOP Sens. Collins and Snowe from Maine, Coleman from Minn., Smith from Ore., Grassley from Iowa and Warner from Va. voted with the Democrats. Mary Landrieu from La. was the lone Dem against. On the second bill, Republicans Snowe, Smith and Bob Corker of Tenn. voted with the majority, but that made only 50 votes. Key Democrats Obama, Clinton, Kennedy and Byrd were absent, as was Republican John McCain. Both bills faced a veto from the White House. However, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he intends to revive the renewable tax credit bill, which passed the House last fall in a different form. Both parties seem to favor extending the credits, needed to maintain growth in renewable energy, but there’s a dispute about how and whether to pay for it with other taxes. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E News,
AP/Washington Post)

House approves funding for Amtrak, high-speed trains, study of biofuel use

(Photo of an Amtrak train in Bloomington-Normal, IL, from Flickr and photographer Jim Frazier)

Washington Report 2: The House of Representatives voted 311-104 Wednesday for an Amtrak reauthorization bill that includes $1.75 billion over 5 years for developing 11 high-speed intercity rail corridors. It also provides $2.5 billion for states to provide new or improved intercity rail. Another provision funds studies of how a biofuel blend instead of straight diesel could cut CO2 emissions and the feasibility of bio-based lubricants. The Senate passed a similar bill in October. Now the two go to conference to resolve their differences. President Bush has threatened a veto but both chambers passed their bills by more than a two-thirds majority so would likely be able to override a veto. A bipartisan transportation panel had recommended a high-speed network across the country, costing an estimated $66.3 billion by 2015. (Source: E&E Daily)

IEA says global ‘energy revolution’ needed to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050

(Photo of wind turbines in Italy from Flickr and photographer gorillaradio/Sebastiano Pitruzzello)

News Update 1: A worldwide “revolution” in the way we use energy is needed in the next 40 years, the International Energy Agency said last week. The cost will be $45 trillion, the agency said. But failure to act will result in an energy shortage and a slowdown in the global economy. Massive changes will be needed on a worldwide basis, including:
• Retrofitting 35 coal-fired plants and 20 natural gas plants each year to capture and store carbon dioxide.
• Building 32 nuclear plants a year.
• Installing 17,500 new wind turbines a year.
• Increasing solar energy and second-generation biofuels that won’t compete with food.
One of the most challenging changes will be to drastically reduce fossil fuel use for transport, at a time when auto and plane use is skyrocketing in developing nations. Oil demand needs to be cut to 27% of 2005 levels, said the agency, which advises 27 nations on energy policy. The task at hand is gargantuan, but without it oil demand will likely grow 70% and GHG emissions will increase 130% by mid-century, IEA said. The impact would be calamitous, with more severe droughts, famines, floods and rising seas that engulf coastal cities. IEA urged the G-8 to endorse the goal to reduce GHG in half by 2050 at its meeting in July. (Sources: Greenwire, New York Times)

Nuclear wins, renewables lose in DOE's R&D budget

(Photo of nuclear power plant on Lake Erie from Flickr and photographer mandj98/James Phelps)

News Update 2: Nuclear energy is the big winner in the Department of Energy’s fiscal 2009 budget for research and development, and renewable energy and efficiency are the losers. Funds for research, development and deployment in the nuclear sector are up 46%, while RD&D money for renewable energy and efficiency is down 50%, said a report released last week by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Also cut, by 15%, was much-needed improvement to the electricity transmission and distribution system. The weatherization program was eliminated. The budget doesn’t reflect the technologies needed for a low-carbon energy supply, said the report, which urged a drastic increase in spending for new technologies, efficiency and energy storage. The budget “is a far cry from the Manhattan Project for clean energy technology some have proposed,” the report said. The breakdown in the new budget:
*Nuclear fusion 15%
*Nuclear fission 21%
*Fossil fuels 23%
*Renewable energy 17%
*Efficiency 16%
*Hydroelectric 5%
*Electricity transmission 3%
(Sources: E&E News PM, Kennedy School of Government Belfer Center Report)

Freight trains slowed by congestion; more investment needed to expand rail system

(Photo of freight train from Flickr and photographer mre770/Bill Wooten)

News Update 3: Getting freight off the highways and onto trains would be good for the environment. But rail industry leaders are saying there already is too much freight congestion on the nation’s 140,000 miles of track and the system is strained, with freight cars sitting for hours because of one-track lines. At a recent Congressional hearing on rail congestion, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said, “The amount of money invested nationally is pathetic.” In Chicago, the country’s rail hub, trains sometimes are sidelined for as long as 36 hours, according to Jason Breslow on Medill Reports. Freight traffic is expected to nearly double in the next 2 decades, and that is without a nationwide effort to make more use of rails to cut carbon emissions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates expansion would cost $148 billion over 3 decades, most of it paid by the rail companies. (Sources: Greenwire, Medill Reports)

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)

Senate global warming bill dies without debate

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Matt Wright.)

Washington Report: America’s Climate Security Act died an ignominious death Friday morning, when those who wanted to limit debate and move toward a vote lost a cloture motion 48-36 (60 votes were needed). Seven Republicans – Collins, Snowe, Warner, Smith, Sununu, Martinez and Dole – joined 39 Democrats and 2 Independents to support the motion. An additional 6 senators – Obama, McCain, Clinton, Kennedy, Biden and Coleman -- sent written messages that they would have voted for cloture if they’d been there. The vote followed several days of filibustering by the GOP leadership, including the forced 9-hour reading of the entire 492-page bill aloud by clerks. A point of contention was Majority Leader Harry Reid’s refusal to allow unlimited amendments. And Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the move was a protest against Democrat delay on judicial appointments. Along with McConnell, others using procedural motions to delay debate included Sens. Allard, Inhofe and Cornyn. A GOP lobbyist’s memo that was leaked pointed to a strategy to “make political points” by linking the debate to the high price of gasoline every day. Democrat leaders now say they are looking to next year and a new administration to carry the ball forward. In an effort to rally support in the final hours, bill co-sponsor Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told colleagues a new president could have the EPA draft global warming regulations under the Supreme Court decision Massachusetts vs. EPA, and Congress would have little input. Republicans’ main argument against the bill was cost. Four Democrats broke with their colleagues and voted no: Sens. Dorgan, Johnson, Brown and Landrieu. For more on the bill see the blog Grist. (Sources: E&E News PM, E&E Daily, Greenwire, Grist, Sierra Club)

Hawaii, West Coast metro areas have lowest per capita residential carbon footprints -- why?

(Photo of Honolulu from Flickr and photographer Christopher Dale.)

News Update 1: If you want to reduce your personal carbon footprint, it might be a good idea to move to the West Coast, or possibly Hawaii. In a study of the 100 largest metro areas in the U.S., measuring highway driving and residential energy use, Honolulu came in first. California, Oregon and Washington all did well – in part because of the mild climate and use of hydropower, but also because of aggressive policies on energy pricing, efficiency, and availability of mass transit. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana was second, Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton third and New York City-Long Island-Northern New Jersey 4th. In California, 8 of the 10 largest metro areas were in the top 25. Washington, D.C. ranked last and had a per capita footprint 10 times that of Seattle, which was sixth. Also low on the list were Lexington, Ky., Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Toledo. Among the study’s recommendations for the federal government:
• Set a price on carbon emissions
• Pass a renewable electricity standard
• Invest more in research and development
• Help states reform electricity regulations to reward efficiency
• Give more support to mass transit
For more on the carbon footprint of the 100 metro areas see the Brookings site. (Sources: ClimateWire, New York Times)

Great Lakes threatened by climate change

(Photo of Lake Michigan at Petoskey from Flickr and photographer .jowo/Joel Dinda.)

News Update 2: Climate change will hurt the Great Lakes ecosystem, a report released last week says. Even worse, it will put pressure on the 8 states and 2 Canadian provinces bordering the lakes to sell water to other states and even other countries as droughts get worse and the value of water goes up. To meet the diversion threat, states in the Great Lakes basin have formed a compact not to divert the water. Wisconsin was the 6th state to sign on last week. But the agreement must be ratified by Congress. Will reps from other regions be willing to do that? The Great Lakes contain 20% of the world’s fresh surface water. Other climate change threats to the lakes include invasive species interrupting the food chain for fish, shallow water disrupting shipping, and stronger storms sending more pollution into the lakes. Tourist activities like fishing, skiing, snowmobiling and swimming will likely be hurt by the warming of the region and changes in the lakes. Learn more and download the report. (Sources: ClimateWire, National Wildlife Federation)

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)

Environmental organizations protest nuclear amendment to Senate global warming bill

(Photo of nuclear power plant in Byron, Ill., from Flickr and photographers iluvcocacola/Bill and Vicky Tracey.)

Washington Report 1: Ten environmental organizations have sent a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) protesting their nuclear title amendment to the global warming bill (S. 3036), which would give a portion of carbon-credit auction revenue to support the making of nuclear reactor parts. The groups say the money isn’t needed because nuclear energy already gets loan guarantees, production tax credits and disaster insurance from the 2005 Energy Bill, and that it is likely to sit unused. Instead the funds should go to energy efficiency and renewables, say Clean Water Action, Environment America, the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the League of Women Voters, Nuclear Policy Institute/Beyond Nuclear, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club. (Source” E&E News PM)

Labor, other groups back Global Warming bill

Washington Report 2: The following eclectic list organizations gave their seal of approval this week to the revised Boxer/Lieberman/Warner global warming bill (S. 3036): GE, National Resources Defense Council, Alcoa, Florida Power & Light, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Trout Unlimited, the boilermakers union, plumbers and pipefitters, electrical workers, brickmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger (R-Calif.) Those calling for changes in the bill include Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Oxfam America. (Source: E&E News PM)

Strong climate bill unveiled by Rep. Markey

(Photo of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) from Flickr and photographer Keith Ivey.)

Washington Report 3: Expect U. S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a champion of strong climate change legislation, to introduce his iCap bill (Invest in Climate Action & Protection Act) in the House Tuesday. The bill calls for:
• 85% cut in greenhouse gases by mid-century
• a cap-and-trade plan to start in 2012
• 94% of credits auctioned from the start, with 6% given to vulnerable industries like glass, steel and cement
• Auction proceeds going to tax cuts for low- and middle-income people, energy technology research, energy efficiency, adaptation to climate change
• A carrot-and-stick approach to trade with other nations, with the carrot being access to billions for clean technology and forestation for those with similarly strong climate plans and the stick an added cost in the form of having to buy carbon credits if they want to export carbon-intensive products to us
• Overriding the EPA decision to deny California (and many other states) the ability to curb tailpipe emissions
• New EPA regulations for coal mines, landfills, large animal feeding operations and other emitters of greenhouse gases not otherwise covered in the bill.
This is a bill environmentalists have to love. It shows many of the Senate bill’s shortcomings. (Source: ClimateWire)

Polar bears in cross-hairs of legal maneuvers

(Photo of polar bear from Flickr and and photographer metrognome0.)

Washington Report 4: A flurry of lawsuits have been filed against the Interior Department in the wake of it’s decision earlier this month that the polar bear is “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act but that it will do little to protect the marine mammal that requires sea ice to hunt, mate and dig a den for its offspring. The day after the decision, several environmental groups filed a complaint saying the new special rule against regulating greenhouse gases violated the ESA. Then Alaskan officials sued to reverse the “threatened” status, apparently concerned about the oil business, though under this Administration they need not worry. Finally, a hunting group, U.S.-based Safari Club International, sued to allow hunters to continue bringing back trophy polar bear carcasses from Canada. The group pointed out that hunters must pay $1,000 for each carcass they bring back and that money goes to research and conservation of the polar bear. Huh?? (Source: E&E PM)

Renewable energy use here down 1% last year due to dought, carbon dioxide emissions grew

(Photo of hydroelectric waterfall from Flickr and photographer grendelkhan.)

News Update 1: Consumption of renewable energy in the U.S, slipped slightly in 2007 because lack of rain cut hydroelectric power 14%. Drought is predicted to be a continuing problem because of climate change. Other forms of renewable energy were up, according to a report from the Energy Information Administration. Wind rose 21% and biomass 7% (mostly because of ethanol). Overall renewables were down 1%, following several years of growth. Sources of energy in 2007 were:
• renewables 7%
• petroleum 40%
• natural gas 23%
• coal 22%
• nuclear 8%
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. grew 1.6%, according to the EIA, with all the growth attributed to residential and commercial buildings. Since 1990 C02 growth in the U.S. was nearly 20%. Nations that signed the Kyoto treaty (not us) were committed to cutting C02 5% from 1990 levels.
(Source: E&E News PM, Greenwire)

San Francisco Bay Area imposes carbon fee

(Photo of Bay Area from Flickr and photographer brothergrimm/Matthew Grimm.)

News Update 2: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District imposed a carbon fee on refiners, cement plants, gas stations and other stationary sources, despite vociferous opposition from the oil industry, which will be hardest hit. The fee of 4.4 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalents applies to a 9-county area in Northern California, around San Francisco. The district said the rule is based on the need to cut emissions expressed in the California climate law, A.B.32. (Source: E&E PM, Mercury News.)

Ocean acidity from greenhouse gases speeding up much faster than expected

(Photo of California coast from Flickr and photographer Alykat/Alyson Hurt.)

News Update 3: Greenhouse gas emissions have caused surface water in the ocean off the West Coast to acidify far faster than anticipated, according to a new study published in Science. Some areas have reached acidity levels not expected until 50-100 years from now. The oceans have absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere in the past 150 years, and acidity has grown 30%, researchers said. This could damage shellfish, corals and ultimately be disastrous for fish. While much of climate change involves warming temperatures, ocean acidity is another direct result of greenhouse gases, just as warming is. (Source: E&E News PM)

Global warming debate in Senate set for next week

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Charles Pence.)

Weekly Angst: Prepare to turn on C-Span next week and watch the debate over the Senate global warming bill. It should be revealing.

Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) came up with a “substitute” bill (S. 3036) last week, which incorporates the one by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), but tries to meet some objections to garner more support. It includes, for example, a $955 billion fund (from now through 2050) to pay down the federal deficit, to make the bill budget neutral (if not carbon neutral). The debate is expected to start in the early evening June 2, with a cloture vote that even staunch opponents are likely to go along with – they want a debate too. Lieberman and Warner have signed off on Boxer’s substitute and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) are co-sponsors.

It should be a zoo. This topic elicits strong feelings because global warming is an enormous issue that threatens the planet but also has implications for industry, as it calls for a seismic shift from fossil fuels to carbon-free (or at least low-carbon) energy. The bill sets up a cap-and-trade system, which puts an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auctions or gives away credits that businesses can trade depending on whether they meet their emissions targets. If they don't, they must buy credits from those who do.

All kinds of amendments planned, from one by Lieberman and Warner to include more nuclear power, to one by Republicans to return revenue from the auction of carbon credits to the taxpayers as tax cuts. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) wants to tell the U.S. to engage in global climate negotiations for real, and a likely Republican amendment will ask for inclusion of offshore drilling for oil and gas. Dems have been alerted, too, about planned GOP amendments specifically designed to embarrass them and their likely presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

Environmental groups (2 dozen of them) released a statement late last week saying the bill still “needs to be strengthened to ensure it will meet the reductions science dictates” (at least 80% cut by 2050), which it does not. Boxer did not increase the target, which is 71% by 2050, but really only 66% because it does not include all greenhouse gas emissions. It's not clear to me if there’s been any change in the percent of credits auctioned off, which start as 26.5% in 2012, going up to 79% in 2031. Bur since there’s been no mention of it, I assume it hasn’t changed much. That percentage is deemed too low by most environmentalists, because it means more free credits to polluters and less money bolster renewable energy. Many want 100% auctioned.

Where the revenue will go
The Boxer version of the bill lists specific payoffs to different segments from the bill’s revenues, which will come from auction of credits:
• $911 billion for consumers for help with increased energy costs and energy efficiency projects. Most ($850B) would help with energy costs.
• $231B in assistance to steel, glass, aluminum, rubber and paper companies to make needed changes -- they're seen as the industries that will have the most trouble adjusting.
• $566B for states to deal with GHG cuts.
• $307B for electric utilities to revamp.
• $150B for renewable energy companies.
• $68B to the auto industry to retool for hybrids, plug-ins, electric and fuel-cell vehicles.
• $250B for adaptation to climate change, largely for coastal states.
• $288B for wildlife adaptation.
• $560B for a fund states can access if they switch over from their own emissions programs to the federal one.
(All these amounts are spread over 40 years)

Free credits for fossil fuels have shrunk in the new version but more credits will be given for capture and storage of carbon dioxide. But if I’m reading this right, there is WAY too little going to renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal. We need to be virtually switched over to them from fossil fuels by 2050. So why so stingy? Could it be that the lobbyists for these fledgling industries don't have the money to spread around that oil, gas and other mature industries have? You betcha.

It looks like nuclear energy will be one of the winners in this new version. The bill now provides $92 million in incentives, on top of what the nuclear power industry already gets from the government. And a successful Lieberman-Warner amendment would bring them even more. Nuclear, which now provides 8% of U.S. power, is a huge bone of contention with many environmentalists who don’t like the radiation involved and say "no nukes, no way." Even those who think some nuclear plants might be necessary to wean us off fossil fuels -- if safety and disposal problems can be solved -- would far rather see money go to really clean sources like wind, solar, geothermal and wave action.

Even if this bill should pass the Senate, it's unlikely the House will act before the end of the year. And this president would not sign a bill that would satisfy anyone who sees a need for urgent change. So the debate is probably just the first salvo in a battle that may be more successful with the next Congress and next president. But it still should be interesting to watch it unfold.
(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E News PM)

Take action: Send an e-mail to your senators.

House passes bill to extend renewable energy tax credits, despite White House veto threat

(Photo of solar panels from Flickr and photographer kqed quest.)

Washington Report: The House of Representatives voted 263-160 Wednesday to approve yet another bill extending tax incentives for renewable energy such as wind and solar. But the White House is threatening to veto the $59 billion tax package, not so much on the credit extensions as the means to pay for them. The vote was largely along party lines. Renewable energy industries are eager to see extension of the incentives, due to expire in December, in order to maintain momentum. A House bill that included extensions paid for by repeal of oil and gas breaks, passed late last year but stalled in the Senate. Then earlier this year the Senate attached renewable incentives to a housing bill, but without any means to pay for them. The House, whose leaders want all expenditures paid for, added revenue from tax changes for offshore and multinational businesses to this bill. And that is the part President Bush objects to most. The bill extends production credits for wind till the end of 2009 and for geothermal and biomass for 3 years, as well as investment credits for solar for 6 years. It includes a $4,000 credit for residential solar power and $3,000 or more for buying plug-in cars. House Dems and Republicans disagree about the bill’s chances in the Senate. Meanwhile, House Republicans unveiled their own energy agenda, which would increase incentives for domestic production of fossil fuels, alternative fuels and nuclear energy, in addition to renewables and efficiency. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E News PM)

Massive new study links global warming to physical, biological changes on planet

(Photo of Alps from Flickr and Philippe Tarboureich.)

News Update: An international team of scientists has affirmed and expanded on last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report by linking human activity and rising temperatures to physical and biological changes observed on Earth over the past 30 years. “The human footprint on the planet is clear,” said one of the authors, Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The study, published in Nature, matched changes like melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, warming lakes and rivers, longer growing seasons, earlier migration and breeding of birds, movement of heat-intolerant species up mountains, and changes in fish communities. They point to a few specifics, by continent: 89 flower species blooming earlier in Europe, melting glaciers in the Alps and in Patagonia, changes in the freeze depth of permafrost in Russia, and a 50% decline in the Emperor penguin on the Antarctic peninsula. Temperature was far more a factor than land use, pollution and population, according to the 30,000 data sets studied. In a second study published in Nature, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was found to be 28% higher than at any time in 800,000 years, according to gas bubbles in ice in Antarctic -- and methane was 124% higher. Both add carbon to the atmosphere. (Sources: E&E News PM, The Daily Green, Planet Ark.)

Wind energy could be 20% of total U.S. power by 2030, Energy Department says

(Photo of windfarm from Flickr and photographer Brent Danley.)

News Update: The U.S. could be getting one-fifth of its energy from wind by 2030, the Department of Energy said last week – so long as there is support from private industry and government agencies. A jump to 20% is possible technically, but would require a good interstate transmission grid, DOE said. A 20% share would mean a cut of 25% in greenhouse gas emissions, and wind energy would require 17% less water. Today, wind is only 1% of the total here, but growing. Last year, 3,100 turbines were installed in 34 states. Another 2,000 are under construction. (Sources: PlanetArk, E&E News PM)

Environmental leaders weigh in with their solutions to global warming

(Photo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from Flickr and photographer King dafy/Devin Ford.)

Weekly Angst: Last weekend we heard from several climate leaders that the impact of global warming will be even worse than predicted a year or two ago. Now, some words of wisdom on what we need to do to salvage the situation.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance:
The U.S. has the second largest geothermal resources in the world, plus enough wind in 3 states to meet all our electricity needs, as well as enough potential solar power in 19% of desert in the Southwest to meet nearly all our needs, even if everyone had a plug-in car. In order to bring about a renewable-energy revolution, the new president should immediately:
1) Initiate a cap-and-trade system to put pressure on carbon emissions and reward energy innovation.
2) Revamp the antiquated power grid so it can transmit renewable energy over long distances. Open it up by getting rid of state rules that restrict access and add “smart” features to deliver power where and when it is needed.
3) Spend $1 trillion over the next 15 years on infrastructure, paid for by government, utilities, investors and entrepreneurs.
4) Encourage much more efficient buildings and machines, through energy efficiency and tax credits.
(Source: Vanity Fair)

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and author of the new “Earth: The Sequel”:
The Congress must mandate a cap-and-trade system with a steadily declining limit on global warming pollution. Survival depends on a “wholesale reinvention of the way we make and use energy. We need a “second industrial revolution as sweeping as [the one] a century ago … We will need to harness energy from the sun, the waves, living organisms, and the heat embedded in the planet. We will need to reinvent automobiles, clean up emissions from the immense and rapidly growing coal infrastructure, use the energy we have far more efficiently and put an end to tropical deforestation. A cap on carbon will launch all these solutions into the mainstream.” Energy innovators abound but are up against industries that have subsidies, trade agreements and regulations in their favor, plus control distribution routes. Cap-and-trade would allow the market to decide who “really can deliver the goods.” (Source: “Earth: the Sequel.”)

Bill McKibben, author of “The End of Nature” (1989) and founder and organizer of Step It Up 2007, which has turned into 1sky.org, and now founder of a new global group, 350.org:
The key is to rally public opinion. “We need a movement … a political swell larger than the civil rights movement …. Without it we’re not going to best the fossil fuel companies and automakers and the rest of the vested interests that are keeping us from change.” Once there’s a price on carbon, money will flow quickly to efficiency and conservation. The savings will be huge. “There’s not enough money in the world to deal with global warming if it gets out of control.” (Sources: Greenwire, Salt Lake Tribune, Yes! Magazine.)

Guy Duancy, organizer, speaker and co-author of “Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change”:
Buildings, transportation and food/forests are each responsible for about a third of CO2 emissions. So, the solutions lie in those areas, as well as the electricity that powers homes and industry.
1) Buildings: The U.S. Conference of Mayors approved an initiative to have all new buildings and major renovations in the U.S. carbon neutral by 2030. Britain requires new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2016. In existing buildings, owners could cut energy use 20-50% with new windows, super-insulation, heat-recovery, and efficient boilers and appliances. We need tax credits and rules like San Francisco’s requiring owners to upgrade buildings before they are sold.
2) Transportation: A switch to electric cars and plug-in hybrids made of light-weight material, combined with high-speed trains, bus rapid transit, biking, walking and telecommuting could reduce fuel need to about 5%. Long-distance trucking emissions should be severely curtailed by using more goods locally and switching to hydrogen-enhanced hybrid biofueled trucks.
3) Food: Livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gases. Methane from cows’ stomachs and nitrous oxide from their manure, and in fertilizer, are far more potent than CO2. The solution is to eat less meat and dairy and more locally grown and organic vegetarian fare.
4) Forests: Destruction of the world’s rainforests releases 17% of world carbon emissions. We need to protect forests in the Amazon, Indonesia and the Congo by buying them, putting them in trust for indigenous people, and paying for policing against illegal logging.
5) Electric power: The challenge is to make the transition to renewable energy in time. We need non-corrupted governments to cap oil wells, close coal mines, require efficiency in autos, buildings and appliances, and redirect investment to renewables.
(Source: Yes! Magazine, click on buildings, electricity, transportation, food and forests.)

Take action: If you haven't already done so, join the 1.2 million-plus who have signed up for Al Gore's We and read the list of solutions they propose.

Inslee, Markey and Waxman set 'principles' for global warming legislation in House

(Photo of Rep. Jay Inslee (D- Wash.) from Flickr, uploaded by Jay Inslee.)

Washington Report 1: Three key Congressmen are collecting their colleagues’ signatures on a set of principles they say must be part of any climate change legislation. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) aren’t leaving it up to chance or to the Energy Committee, headed by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) to set the course for legislation in the House. At least that’s my take. They also may be serving a warning to the Senate that parts of its global warming bill are not acceptable. The overriding principles they cite are pretty bland: 1) Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming, 2) Transition America to a clean energy economy, 3) Recognize and minimize any economic impacts, and 4) Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming. The specifics, however, mark out a much stronger territory:
• Set strong science-based targets for near- and long-term emissions;
• Auction emissions allowances rather than giving them free to polluters;
• Invest auction revenues in clean-energy technologies;
• Return some auction revenues to consumers, workers and communities to offset any economic impacts;
• Preserve state authority;
• Protect against trade disadvantages to U.S. industry; and
• Dedicate a portion of auction revenues to address harm from already unavoidable global warming.
Take action: Call, visit or write to urge your representative to sign on to this letter of principles. We don't want -- and the planet can't tolerate -- anything weaker.

One more try to extend renewable tax credits so wind, solar growth doesn't lose power

(Photo of wind turbines from Flickr and photographer Nick Atkins.)

Washington Report 2: A new effort to assure continuation of renewable energy tax credits got the green light yesterday from the House Ways and Means Committee. The proposal backs off on paying for the $16.9 billion in credits by rolling back breaks for oil and gas, instead paying for them with totally unrelated tax changes for offshore and multinational companies. The Senate had objected to a tax hit on Big Oil but the House wanted to pay as you go. So it seems this may satisfy both, which would salvage the incentives that keep renewable energy viable. The three times since 1999 that wind credits were allowed to expire, installations dropped 70%, according to the American Wind Energy Assn. The new bill extends wind production tax credits till the end of 2009, biomass and geothermal credits for 3 years, and the solar energy incentive 6 years, also doubling the solar credit cap to $4,000. The bill also provides incentives for cellulosic biofuel and renewable diesel, installation of E85 pumps, and buying plug-in cars, as well as allowing $1.4 billion for coal and gasification projects that store carbon. (Source: E&E Daily)