Photographic Tribute to Our National Parks

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


Grand Tetons National Park photo by Alaskan Dude/Fred Kovalchek


Arches National Park photo by Vtveen


Yellowstone National Park photo by Alaskan Dude/Fred Kovalchek


Glacier National Park photo by Spunkinator/Danny


Grand Canyon National Park photo by Cobalt123


Everglades National Park photo by Bill Swindaman


Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, photo by Wugging Gavagal


Bryce Canyon National Park photo by by Vtveen


Yosemite National Park photo by Jim Brekke


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

Burns' series continues tonight (Monday) on PBS.

Global warming update is ‘wake-up call’ to nations

(Photo of retreating Athabasca Glacier from Flickr and photographer Janet.Powell)



Climate is changing faster than forecast just two years ago by the authoritative IPCC, a new UN report revealed last week.

More CO2 is going into the atmosphere, glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster, oceans are getting more acidic, and perennial droughts are more common, the UN Environment Programme update said.

Global temperatures could rise 8 degrees Fahrenheit (above pre-industrial levels), based on pledges by countries so far to cut greenhouse gas emissions – double the temperature scientists in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said would be catastrophic. Some think tipping points will come in a matter of years or decades, rather than in a century, as earlier forecast.

Degree of damage
After assessing the latest peer-reviewed science, the report said:
• CO2 in the atmosphere is growing at 3.5% a year this decade, compared with 1.1% a year in the 1990s.
• At least half of the next 10 years should be warmer than the previous record in 1998.
• Glaciers and sea ice have melted since 2000 at twice the rate of the 1980s and ‘90s.
• Greenland ice in 2007 thawed 60% above the record melt in 1998.
• An ice-free September in the Arctic Ocean could come in 2030, not 2100 as earlier predicted.
• West Antarctica ice loss increased 60% from 1996-2006 and the Antarctic Peninsula thaw was up 140% the same decade. Closing of the ozone hole over Antarctic will likely accelerate warming there.
• Melting land ice and thermal expansion could raise sea levels 6 feet by century’s end, rather than the earlier predicted 1.5 feet.
• Marine ecosystems will turn over 60% by 2050 because of extinctions and invasive species.

Impact on treaty talks
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the new report a “wake-up call” for countries meeting in Copenhagen in December to try to reach accord on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

"Shying away from a major agreement in Copenhagen will probably be unforgivable, if you look back ... at this moment,” said UNEP executive director Achim Steiner.

Countries still disagree about the amount of GHG emissions industrialized and developing countries should cut and how much rich countries should help fund poor ones for adaptation and low-carbon economic development. Some European countries pledging 20% or more in cuts (below 1990 levels) by 2020 criticize the U.S., which is responsible for the most existing atmospheric CO2, for doing too little. The House-passed climate bill targets a 17% reduction (from 2005 levels) by 2020 (that’s about 4% below 1990) and the Senate is thought to be looking at reducing that number. That’s pretty pathetic.

As UNEP report contributor Robert Correl put it: Emissions are accelerating. “We’re not going in the right direction.”


To download the report go to www.unep.org/compendium2009

(Sources: Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, UNEP.com, AP.)

Cost of climate bill will be slight, CBO reports

(Photo of California wildfire from Flickr and photographer slworking2)

The cost of the House-passed climate bill would be mild, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday. The American Climate and Energy and Security Act (ACES) would reduce GDP by ¼ to ¾ of a percent by 2020 and 1 to 3.5% by 2050, the CBO said in a new report.

The impact on household purchasing power would be less than 1% in 2020 and 1.2% in 2050.

CBO said it did not consider the benefits of averting climate change.

And therein lies one problem with predicting the costs connected with any climate bill or plan. The costs of doing nothing are even higher. In some countries GDP could be cut by as much as 20% by 2030, according the UN-backed Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group, which sees Florida losing as much as 10% of GDP.

The other problem in making predictions is that most groups figuring the costs have an ax to grind – they’re either for or against greenhouse gas restrictions and that colors the way they make their estimate.

Hard to figure
The Congressional Research Service (part of the Library of Congress), in a second report released Friday, said any estimate should be “viewed with attentive skepticism.” They examined predictions from such diverse sources as the EPA, MIT, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Heritage Foundation, and National Association of Manufacturers. (The last three oppose the climate bill.)

An EPA study earlier this year said household costs would go up $54 a year, for example, while the Energy Information Administration said $83. An older CBO estimate was $175. The estimates are all over the map.

Efficiency a key
Energy-efficiency programs are important to reducing costs, several organizations have pointed out, so a lot depends on how much efficiency is part of the package. Energy savings could outweigh energy price increases.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Society and Center for American Progress estimated household savings could be $215 years with proper energy efficiency.

Cost of doing nothing
But the cost of climate change that continues unabated will be billions more than the cost of curbing it, a new Union of Concerned Scientists study says. Hurricane damage in Florida could be $33 billion by 2030, the report says.

It’s easy to point to the cost of doing something. But that’s not the whole story.

I used to have a poster in the '60s that said, “Not to decide is to decide.” Those who oppose climate legislation or cap-and-trade as too expensive – or want to put it off – are turning a blind eye to what happens if they fail to act.

We need to consider the costs of flooding, hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, rising seas and all the other weather calamities that will hurt agriculture, businesses and real estate. Remember New Orleans? And there’s also the cost of adaptation – the rush to throw up sea barriers and the like when the results of global warming become more evident. Experts are already recommending expensive adaptation measures like dams, barriers and improved drainage.

(Sources: Congressional Budget Office,ClimateWire, Reuters)

Senators try to stop EPA plan to regulate GHG

(Photo of power plant from Flickr and photographer bass_nroll)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 groups join to fight for climate change bill

(Photo of Capitol from Flickr and photographer Linedog1848)

Groups that realize we need a climate bill now are not going to lie down and let the anti forces roll over them. That’s sure good to hear, after the drubbing health care reform has been taking.

A coalition of 64 environmental groups, unions, sportsmen, religious organizations, veterans, businesses and others announced Tuesday formation of Clean Energy Works, a multi-million-dollar campaign to pass a climate bill in Washington.

Members include such varied organizations as the Sierra Club, Service Employees Union, NAACP, VoteVets and Catholics United. Some of the coalition members lobbied hard for the successful passage of the House bill in June. Others have joined to make a “bigger, bolder and stronger” force as the bill moves to the Senate, according to a Clean Energy Works spokesman.

The group plans to hold 50 events this week to coincide with the release of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy report on the economic benefits of passing a climate bill.

The coalition is not specifying what it wants to see in the Senate bill, or final bill that goes to the President, though individual members will continue to fight for issues important to them.

A staff of 35, provided by member groups, will steer the effort. Plans include grass-roots actions in 28 states and a massive advertising campaign. Ultimate targets of the campaign are about 20 swing votes in the Senate.

Opposition
Also targeting those Senators are climate bill opponents like the American Petroleum Institute, American Coalition for Clean Coal and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who have already launched a huge campaign of grass-roots events, media advertising and lobbying, warning about potential job-loss, high costs and government takeover.

There’s also a group – Climate SOS – working on the left to kill the bill and start over again, saying the House bill – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – doesn’t go far enough. That group plans non-violent civil disobedience, occupation of offices (including those of key proponents Barbara Boxer and John Kerry) and protests on Sept. 22. Groups in SOS include Progressive Democrats of America and the Energy Justice Network.

Perhaps the more militant group on the left (they’re right, you know, it doesn’t go far enough, but we don’t have time to put this off and it’s probably the best we can do) will help Clean Energy Works seem mainstream (it is) and perhaps get it more support.

I’m very relieved a large coalition is pushing for a bill. But we can’t make “them” do all the work. This affects “us” and when Clean Energy Works and its member organizations reach out to us we should do all we can, especially those living in swing states. Keep after your senators. We need this.

(Sources: E&E News PM, Business Week )

Fed climate bill to pre-empt states on cutting GHG

(Photo of power plant in New York City from Flickr and photographer Salim
Virji)

Some states are complaining they won’t be able to set stricter greenhouse gas curbs under a federal climate bill. The House bill passed in June calls for cutting GHG 17% (from 2005 levels) by 2020 and pre-empts states and regional coalitions from requiring stronger measures.

Five state attorneys-general (from California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and Arizona) have written Senate leaders asking them to include in their version of the climate bill a 20% cut by 2020 and permission for states to impose stricter limits if they choose.

At risk is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, made up of 10 Eastern states, which has already raised $350 million for clean energy and efficiency from auctioning permits in its new cap-and-trade market. RGGI is on its way to cutting emissions from power plants 10% by 2018.

Also in danger is the Western Climate Initiative, a plan for 11 states and Canadian provinces to begin cap-and-trade in 2012. A number of other states are “observers.” They don’t want to make a commitment but are watching to see what happens.

Under the House American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), these programs would have to stop in 2012, which means the Western plan would never get off the ground.

The best solution here would be a stronger Senate bill that caps emissions at 20% (at least) but also allows states to do more if they want, just as California has led the way on auto emissions. The East and West Coasts are far more likely than much of the rest of the country to have the political will to do what needs to be done to stop global warming and they shouldn’t be restrained.

But just to put it all in perspective, industrialized nations altogether have plans to cut GHG an average of 10-14% from 1990 levels (which is lower than 2005), according to Reuters, while the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the world needs to cut 20-40% and China and India want the U.S. and other industrialized countries to cut 40% by 2020 to allow for economic growth in developing countries.

(Source: Reuters PlanetArk, riggi.org, westernclimateinitiative.org)

Public still supports Obama on climate change

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

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

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

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

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

(Sources: Washington Post, Greenwire)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sources: Greenwire, repoweramerica.org)

Can natural gas from shale save climate bill?

(Photo of natural gas rig in Louisiana from Flickr and photographer Daniel Foster)

Some Senators see incentives for natural gas from shale as a way to win more support for a climate change bill in their chamber. Leading the way to add those incentives are Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, the latter a swing vote himself.

New discoveries of shale gas (not to be confused with dirty shale oil) reserves, plus the technology to drill for it, have made shale gas a cleaner replacement for coal to make electricity, as well as a potential backup for wind and solar. Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions of coal. And wind and solar will need a backup, at least at the start, because of their dependence on the weather. Natural gas generators can be fired up quickly to serve that purpose.

New discoveries have increased natural gas reserves in the past couple of years, from 1,300 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 1,800 tcf in 2008, mostly in shale, according to a report by the Potential Gas Committee.

The political potential
Lo and behold, many of the gas reserves in shale are in the homes states of uncommitted Democratic senators: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – as well as Republican George Voinovich of Ohio.

When the House version – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – narrowly passed, the majority of reps from Ark. Ohio, La. and Penn. voted against it (as well as Texas. Okla. and Ky.) and the W. Va. delegation was evenly split.

Natural gas vs. coal
Incentives for natural gas would pit the gas industry against the coal business. Natural gas would benefit from the proposed cap on emissions because it will lead to a quicker changeover from coal. And the gas industry favors fewer offsets, which would allow coal-fired utilities to stall in making changes by contributing to forests and other projects.

The coal business, not surprisingly, is worried about losing out to natural gas under climate legislation and opposes incentives that could speed that transition. The American Mining Association is running ads pointing to the volatility of natural gas prices and warning of spiking electricity costs. They’re not going to give up without a fight, so it remains to be seen which is strongest in vying for these senators’ loyalty.

But natural gas from shale, though not clean enough in the long run, just might help us over two humps – the transition to totally renewable, clean energy and the passage of a climate bill by both houses of Congress this year.

(Source: E&E Daily)

Follow us at Twitter.

Oil-funded protests staged to show 'energy citizens' ire against House climate change bill

(Photo of protest at Sen. Mark Warner's (D-Va.) office from Flickr and photographer formatted_dad/Michael

If you’ve been annoyed at the phony grass-roots protests of health reform, just wait till you see what’s coming on climate change.

Starting Tuesday in Houston, the American Petroleum Institute will bankroll at least 20 rallies across the country in coordination with Freedom Works (Dick Armey’s group that brought you the screaming health protestors) and many other industrial and conservative organizations. In an email that was leaked, API said it would do all the organizing (by hiring a professional events manager) and all the others had to do was “show up.”

The Astroturf “energy citizens” rallies are being staged at lunchtime, primarily in areas where Democratic senators have conservative constituencies. They are staged to give the impression there’s a groundswell of public opinion against Obama’s climate strategy.

The purpose is not to kill climate change legislation, API insists, but to make the Senate version of the bill more energy (read “oil”) friendly.

Talking points
Expect the usual half-truths, exaggerations and mostly downright lies.
A flier promoting the rallies says the House version of the climate bill, would:
• Cost 2 million jobs.
• Push gasoline prices over $4/gallon.
• Reduce energy security.
• Hurt American businesses’ ability to compete.

Talking points will include budget projections that were refuted by the Congressional Budget Office weeks ago.

Other organizations participating in the rallies include the American Farm Bureau, American Highway Users Alliance, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

Another group, the Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (don’t be fooled by the word “clean”) has already begun a program of harassment at town meetings and other events.

Some companies are members of both the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which backs the legislation. ConocoPhillips is urging its employees to turn out for the rallies and Exxon backs them. Shell, on the other hand, says it does not support them.

Oil and coal companies are basically fighting for their lives here. Strong regulation of emissions and a shift to clean energy will hurt them badly. So their motivation is strong. And they have the money to do this.

Environmental groups don’t have the money to stage such events, but there will be some rallies to strengthen climate legislation and as well as plans to contact senators in person and by phone or email. We all need to lend a voice. The other side is going all out.

(Sources: Greenwire, The Guardian)

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

(Photo from Flickr and state of Washington DNR.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow earthlingangst now on twitter.

Follow the $$ that influenced climate change bill

(Picture of money from Flickr and photographer Tracy O.)

There are 2 ways for industry to gain access to congressman considering global warming (or any other) legislation. Both involve money. There are paid lobbyists and contributions to campaign funds.

And Big Energy was busy trying both ways in the House this spring as the American Clean and Energy Security Act (ACES) was heatedly debated and narrowly passed with some concessions to electric utilities and coal.

As Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen told Greenwire, “The more you spend the better chance you’ve got at influencing legislation.”

Lobbyists
In the second quarter alone (April-June, when the bill was debated in committee), the 10 industries with the biggest stake in the results spent $122 million. Oil and gas spent the most, at $37.7 million. Chevron alone spent $6 million. Environmental groups spent just $5.2M.

In the whole first half of 2009, oil and gas spent $82.2M and electric utilities spent $35.9 million on lobbyists, while Exxon Mobil by itself spent $15M, slightly more than all clean energy combined.

Campaign contributions
In the same quarter, coal-fired electric utilities, with potentially the most to lose, were busy contributing to Congressmen’s campaign funds. Especially those on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which was debating the climate change bill.

Employee PACS at American Electric Power, Southern Co. and Duke Energy together donated $165,000 to 70 house members, many on the Energy Committee. The largest donation, $11,500, went to Minority Leader John Boener (R-Ohio).

Those who received these contributions voted 2-1 against the bill. This despite the fact that the three companies ended up supported it – and why not? They got a pretty good deal, with 35% of the free credits allocated to electric utilities. Plus the EPA lost some of is power to regulate coal-fired utility plants under the Clean Air Act. And research money for carbon capture and sequestration was included.

Eight Republicans ended up voting for the bill. Of those, 7 got little or no money from the utilities. An industry rep explained to E&E Daily they only contribute to those with whom they see eye-to-eye on issues. The wavering Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who ended up voting for the bill, was wooed with contributions by both sides.

More money for Democrats
Because they now have the majority (and some hail from oil patch and coal states), Democrats in the House and Senate got a bigger share of energy money than before. In the first half of the 2009 utilities gave 59% of their cash to Democrats, and the nuclear industry gave 65% of theirs.

But oil and gas, and coal, continued to favor the GOP. Oil and gas gave less than 25% to Dems, among them Sens. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), while the National Mining Assn. gave 40%. Exxon Mobil gave just 17% to Democrats.

Both sides (corporations and lawmakers), of course, deny this money buys votes. Industry sources say they tend to give money to those who see issues as they do. They said they donate when lawmakers hold fundraisers, not when a key bill is being considered.

Senators must not have been holding as many fund-raisers this spring, because they got considerably less from the electric utilities than House members.

As action on the climate bill moves to the Senate, look for a rise in “fund raising” there this fall.

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Global warming to surge in next 5 years as El Niño and sun add to greenhouse gases' impact -- study

(Temperature chart from the UK's Climate Research Unit. It was uploaded to Flickr by T. Raftery.)


Beware. This coming fall and winter could be unusually warm. And that fast-warming phase is likely to continue for 5 years and be worse than previously forecast, a new study predicts.

A combination of natural forces have masked the full impact of rising CO2 emissions on average global temperatures over the past decade, but now they are entering a new phase where they will work in tandem with greenhouse gases to heat the planet, according to scientists from NASA and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

Relatively stable average world temperatures since 1999 are the result of a downward cycle in sunspots and flares and a period of weak El Niños, the study says.

But now the 11-year cycle of solar activity is about to go on the upswing and El Niño effects in the Pacific Ocean are expected to produce more extreme heat, says the study. This is the first look at the impact of all four factors on global temperatures: human actions (greenhouse gases), El Niño, solar activity and volcanic eruptions.

The hottest year on record was 1998, in part because of a strong El Niño episode. The extreme heat that year led to droughts, flooding, severe heat waves and the death of 16% of the world’s coral.

(By contrast, 1601 was the coldest year of the millennium, following the giant eruption of a Peruvian volcano that spewed ash that blocked out sunlight. Among the results was a famine in Russia that killed one-third its population.)

The researchers are quick to point out that while these natural forces have an impact, they do not negate the importance of the steady rise of CO2 emissions and their baseline effect on temperatures.

While 1998 was the hottest year and the 1990s the warmest decade on record, 13 of the 14 warmest years were between 1995 and 2008, according to the UK’s Climate Research Unit. And 8 of the top 9 came after 2000.

“We're seeing a long-term warming trend driven by human activity, with natural factors affecting the precise shape of that temperature rise," said Judith Lean, one of the authors.

The study is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters.

(Sources: The Guardian, Climate Research Unit, UK’s Met Office and Greenwire)


CO2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate skeptics misread new global warming study

(Image from Flickr and photographer azrainman)

Oboy. The climate skeptics are having a field day with two studies released last week that suggest scientists don’t know all the factors involved in global warming. The contrarian blogospere is especially excited about research, published in Nature Geoscience, that concluded carbon dioxide only accounted for half of the extreme warming that occurred 55 million years ago. The sceptics’ conclusion? Science models showing warming related to CO2 are all wet. Ergo, we can stop worrying about throwing up all that greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels.

That’s not the way the researchers saw it.

About 55 million years ago, they found, the Earth’s temperature rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius (9 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit) over a period of about 10,000 years. (If you're a Creationist, I guess you can stop reading here.) Based on seabed borings, scientists from Rice University, the University of Hawaii and U Cal Santa Barbara said things were already pretty hot when it all started (there was no surface ice) and they speculate some event, like methane deposits bubbling up from warm seabeds, caused a 70% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over 10,000 years. (Most hydrate methane turns into CO2.)

If only half the temperature increase can be explained by carbon dioxide release, what caused the rest of it? No one's sure but authors of the study said it could involve feedback loops. And they say the unexplained causes don't mean we can stop worrying about climate change. Rather, future global warming could be worse than we thought, because feedback loops caused by melting tundra, changing ocean currents, and water absorbing more sunlight than ice may have caused more warming then than today’s models would explain. (BTW, the UN’s IPPC report on future climate change left out feedback loops because we don’t understand them well enough, though they realized the melting of Greenland, for example, could have a profound effect.)

Forecasts likely underestimate warming
In commentary published along with the study, scientist David Beerling of Sheffield University, UK, said climate forecasts “could be severely underestimating the extent of the problem that lies in store for humanity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.”

An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees the study suggests warming is potentially worse than previously believed.

So don’t let anyone tell you this study throws the global warming theory out the window. More likely we don’t know the half of it.

Looking at warming on a scale we can relate to, say the lifetime of our grandchildren, predictions of catastrophic warming in this century still hold – and may be a lot worse than forecast.

Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the atmosphere has grown from 280 parts per million to 390 ppm or about 40%. C02 in the atmosphere could grow more than 70% in just a century (not 10,000 years) this time, one study author said.

Sunspots and flares
Another theory for changing temperatures on Earth has been the influence of activity on the sun. A second newly published study, in the Journal of Science, links the two together for the first time, but concludes the cyclical activity is similar to that of El Niño and La Niña, in warming the Pacific, but has only about half as much impact on the temperature as El Niño. The differences in the 11-year cycles are “very small,” relative to the sun’s total energy and are short-term cyclical rather than a long-term trend. The study was done by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

(Sources: Reuters PlanetArk, Reuters blog, Science Daily, Nature Geoscience, Union of Concerned Scientists, ClimateWire)

Stimulus money boosts clean energy, efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sources: Climatewire, E&E News PM)

Climate bill waits in Senate for health reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the proverbial “whole world is watching.”

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Some Dems could lose seats over climate vote

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

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

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

So the 2010 campaign has begun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. joins International Renewable Energy Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate split on follow-up to House climate bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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