Fossil Energy
#Climatebill: Top Tweets to Follow Today's House Action
Published May 21, 2009 @ 10:39AM PT
Stay tuned to both democracy and fossil energy dollars in action!
On Twitter, you can follow today's House committee hearing on the Climate and Energy Security Act, aka the Waxman-Markey climate-and-energy bill with these keen tweeters and tags:
#Climatebill Update: House GOPers Mangle Facts on the Taxpayer's Dime
Published May 21, 2009 @ 10:31AM PT
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) (above) on how carbon dioxide is harmless because it's in cola...Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) echoing House colleague Michelle Bachmann's (R-Minn.) recent "harmless gas" routine by saying that CO2 just can't be bad because we breathe it out. Dave Roberts of Grist has compiled videos of these and other "vintage fruitloopery" coming from House GOP members during this week's energy-and-climate bill markup.
It strikes me as important to keep in mind that we are paying these elected officials as they take up everyone's time in the House and go before the media, with this stuff. It's not merely unscientific, but runs counter to this nation's best economic, environmental, and security interests, and too few of their colleagues, as well as mine, seem ready to call them on that.
[[Reps. Bachman and Shimkus could conduct some empirical research, by covering their heads with plastic bags, breathing in and out for a few minutes, and then getting back to the voting public on just how harmless carbon dioxide is.]]
10 Degrees Hotter by 2100? Odds Are Good, Unless We Act
Published May 20, 2009 @ 04:47PM PT
Related Actions:
- Tell Congress to Unleash the Potential of Energy Efficiency!
- Protect Polar Bears from Global Warming
- Contact your Representative today to support a strong clean energy-climate bill
- Tell Congress to Pass a Strong Climate Bill
The future impacts of global warming may be twice as worse as we thought just a few years ago.
If current emissions trends continue, there's a very high probability that by century's end, the Earth's median surface temperature may increase 9.3 degrees F (5.2 degrees C) over average temperatures between 1981-2000, according to a team of MIT researchers .
In the Arctic, where climate changes are amplified, temperatures could rise as much as a median 20° F -- at which point the death knell for the Arctic ice cap and the Greenland ice sheet will have long sounded.
This is an update to a 2003 study made using the MIT Integrated Global System Model, which predicted an increase of 4.3 degrees F (2.4 degrees C). Initially released in February, yesterday the new research was published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate. While scientists will no doubt continue to discuss the particulars of how the data was analyzed, publication in a peer-reviewed journal lends a lot of weight to the findings, and to the team's conclusions, as reported by Reuters:
These projections indicate that "without rapid and massive action," this dramatic warming will take place this century, the statement said.
The outcome looks much worse if nothing is done to combat climate change, compared to earlier projections. But there is less change if strong policies are put in place now to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Without action, said study co-author Ronald Prinn, "there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated. This increases the urgency for significant policy action."
This time around, the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change used updated economic data, improved economic modeling, and data involving "carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem" when they re-ran and analyzed their model. They project an astonishing median greenhouse gas concentration of 866 ppm by century's end. That's over twice the current level of around 389 ppm which is itself considered much too high by many climate experts.
Why the big difference? As the researchers explain on their web site (hat tip to Joe Romm for the find),
There is no single revision that is responsible for this change. In our more recent global model simulatations, the ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower. No one of these effects is very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not fully explain the higher temperatures. Rather than interacting additively, these different affects appear to interact multiplicatively, with feedbacks among the contributing factors, leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures.
What's the alternative? Well, MIT's team estimates that if:
- The Kyoto Protocol is implemented in 2010 by all countries that agreed to caps in the original protocol.
- The world then achieves the emissions limits [of 675 ppm CO2 equivalent, or 4.2 trillion metric tons globally] estimated by the MIT [hypothetical policy scenario] to meet the Level 2 stabilization scenario described by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
...then, the odds that the median global surface temperature will increase by more than 6 degrees F go down significantly, and the probability that the temperature increase will be under 5 degrees F goes up to 80%.
What's all this stuff about probabilities and likelihoods and percentages? Well, the MIT researchers acknowledge the extent of the unknowns in climate scenarios -- such as whether we hit a climate tipping point that causes an extreme condition sends everything to hell in a handbasket faster than can be currently anticipated. Say, that melting permafrost sends such massive new quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that the climate's changes become unstoppable.
They've developed a range of probabilities based on different reactions by us -- no political policy changes, some political policy changes. They call it the "Greenhouse Gamble."
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says in an MIT statement,
Because vehicles last for years, and buildings and powerplants last for decades, it is essential to start making major changes through adoption of significant national and international policies as soon as possible... "The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies."
-----
Image: Policy and No Policy Roulette Wheels, via MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Obama Announces Stricter -- but Uniform -- Auto Fuel and Emissions Rules
Published May 19, 2009 @ 10:22AM PT
President Obama has just announced the proposed new, federal auto emissions and mileage standards that will hike fuel efficiency and and decrease greenhouse gas pollution across the nation's entire consumer vehicle fleet.
At a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama stressed that such an agreement would have been considered impossible in the recent past. President Obama lauded the various interests -- including 10 automakers, the United Auto Workers union, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the state of California -- for uniting behind the federal effort to both improve and unify fuel-efficiency and emissions rules.
The president evoked themes from his run for the White House -- highlighting the need to change the status quo. With just 5 percent of the world's population, the US demands around 25 percent of its oil every year, he noted. This leaves the nation exposed to volatile oil markets, creates a trade deficit, and sends billions of dollars to oil-exporting nations that are not always in political step with the nation's policies and goals. And burning all that oil is contributing to changing the climate -- creating greater fires and droughts, sea level rise, and other disastrous impacts.
Despite understanding all these problems since the 1970s, the nation has allowed a sense of ugency to rise and fade, he said, with little improvement in car and truck efficiency for decades -- echoing his comments near the end of last about the nation's cycle of going from "shock to trance" on confronting its oil dependency. He described a much more upbeat vision of America, in which the nation and the people are able to unite around common efforts to solve tough, long-term problems.
The new federal fuel-efficiency and emissions rules will harmonize three standards that, automakers claimed, would cost them billions to meet: the Department of Transportation's fuel economy requirements; the EPA's mandate under the Supreme Court's Mass. v EPA decision to slash greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act; and the strict auto emissions standards desired by the state of California, which 13 states and DC have said they would adopt if the Golden State were granted a waiver to impose them by the EPA.
Both federal agencies will follow the new standards; California has agreed to support them as well, effectively rendering its request for a waiver from the federal standards moot, and ending a multi-year standoff with the federal government to impose them. And all 10 automakers have agreed to drop their lawsuits in federal court against tougher standards -- a reflection of the financial stake the U.S. government now holds in the business doings of Big Auto.
Mr. Obama stressed that the new uniform federal rules will provide automakers "a clear certainty" in how to plan ahead for new car models, helping to stabilize and restore ailing US firms.
Highlights of the new fuel-efficiency and emissions standards:
- Car, light truck, and SUV fuel efficiency will improve five percent per year between 2012 and 2106
- Entire US consumer fleet will meet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 -- surpassing the standard enacted in 2007 of 35 mpg by 2020
- Oil consumption for personal auto transportation expected to decrease by 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the program -- the equivalent of taking 177 milllion of today's cars off the road, or as much oil as the US imported in 2008 from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and two other nations combined
- Tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases will be cut by 900 million metric tons
- Consumers can expect to make back higher purchase costs within three years, thanks to lowering fuel consumption, says the White House and to save $2800 over the lifetime of the vehicle
- The U.S. will make strategic financial investments in developing cleaner auto energy technologies
Mr. Obama ended the press conference calling for unity in efforts to curb fossil energy use and address global waming, including the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill currently being debated in House committee, and the clean energy and smart grid investments under the recovery act. He took an unusually frank stance (for political leaders in general, less Mr. Obama in particular) by noting that ending dependence on fossil fuels and "an economy that runs on oil," while maintaining a healthy degree of prosperity, represent the most difficult challenge the nation has ever faced.
This effort will take time, he said, and a joint commitment by government, industry, and political parties to refuse to continue past failures and instead unify around common goals for energy independence and a cleaner environment.
"Everything is possible when we're working together," concluded President Obama, "and we're off to a great start."
Activists Criticize Polluter Giveaways in House Energy-Climate Bill
Published May 18, 2009 @ 10:21AM PT
Some of the biggest names in global warming and clean energy advocacy are dismayed at the condition of the House clean energy and climate bill, which emerged last Friday from subcommittee markup.
"Chairmen Waxman and Markey have done heroic work in reaching agreement on the Energy and Commerce Committee around a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan, a critically important milestone that has faced seemingly insuperable obstacles," says the Sierra Club's statement. "But it is clear that Big Oil, Big Coal and other polluters are still holding out for a Congressional bailout. They will continue to try to riddle this legislation with loopholes, water it down, and load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in giveaways. They don't want it to deliver a recovery fueled by the clean energy jobs that America needs."
Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen, doesn't mince words, calling the bill "a huge disappointment":
Not only will it prove a boon to energy industries, but it won’t protect consumers and may very well not even curb global warming. The first draft, penned months ago, was on track to accomplish these goals, and we applauded it as a great start. Since then, however, lawmakers have met in secret with representatives of the coal and oil industries and facilitated industry efforts to gut the bill...instead of a transparent process involving debate and voted-upon amendments, committee leadership conducted closed-door negotiations with polluters. The result: The bill was radically altered to accommodate the financial interests of big energy corporations while giving nothing new for the environment or for working families. This is hardly the transformation this country needs to jump-start its economy and curb climate change...Ultimately, the people’s business should be done in front of the people. Instead, deals have been cut in back rooms to bribe special interests into supporting the bill.
The committee’s decision to give away most of the pollution allowances for free for the next two decades is unacceptable...Europe’s experience shows that when the right to pollute is given free to energy companies, nations fail to meet their emissions caps and price signals in the carbon trading markets are undermined. While we can understand providing some allowances to energy-intensive domestic manufacturing industries that are subject to fierce international competition, the same cannot be said for oil refiners or coal utilities. The bottom line is that this thwarts the very goal of curbing global warming.
One prominent dissenter from the building wave of dismay is Joe Romm, the climate policy blogger at the Center for American Progress. He's not gushing over the bill, but he's not crying over it, either -- instead offering 10 reasons to support it:
1. The Waxman-Markey bill will create jobs by spurring investment in renewables and efficiency.
2. Boosting investments in low-carbon energy will help the United States regain the lead in the manufacture and sale of clean-energy technologies.
3. The global warming threat is growing, and we have no more time to lose.
4. The bill would cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to equal pollution from half a billion cars.
5. It would increase new building efficiency by 50 percent.
6. It limits impact from energy costs on families and would make emitters pay to pollute.
7. It provides a smooth transition for energy-intensive industries.
8. Opponents of action would continue the status quo of doing nothing, which cost the average family a $1,000 increase in energy bills over the past eight years.
9. Investments in carbon capture-and-sequestration research and development to reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
10. The bill has critical industry support.
House Energy-Climate Bill Exits Cave, Squints at Sun
Published May 15, 2009 @ 02:54PM PT
The first serious renewable energy and global warming legislation of the Obama era has survived a House subcommittee. The question is, now that this round of deal-making is done, what's left in it for clean energy and the climate?
The "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (ACES) emerged today, scheduled for markup before the full House Committee on Energy and Commerce next Monday. This is surely a testament to the tenacity of its sponsors, Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, who faced input from Republican colleagues that alternated between global warming denial and spreading disinformation.
As for fossil energy Democrats on the committee, what Rep. Markey (D-Mass.) this week described it as bargaining with "the coal sector, with the steel, with the auto sector, with the refining sector on our committee" has had enviro-advocates holding their collective breath to see if anything good in the bill would survive.
(As a chart up at the Wonk Room this week illustrates, the legislators with sure 'yes' votes for the bill received $99,314 in lifetime contributions from fossil energy industries; 'maybes' received over $616,000, and the certain "no" votes, $730,997.)
It'll take me a bit to ferret out the salient points from this 932-page bill. But according to a summary of how pollution allowances will be distributed, posted by CongressDaily (a blog at The National Review),
- Under the rubric of "consumer protection," around 70 percent of initial emissions allowances will be going to the utility sector, to be phased out between 2026 and 2030; 9 percent to natural gas distributors, same phase-out; and roughly 17 percent going to programs to help low- and moderate-income Americans cover potential increases in their energy bills.
- "Transition assistance for industry" will take 17% of allowances, beginning in 2014 and ending mostly in 2026.
- The memo also details allowance distributions related to renewable energy, carbon capture, and carbon sinks like forests; it gets very policy-wonky.
As of writing this, Greenpeace has come down firmly against the results, saying in a statement that “[D]espite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state."
According to the group's first reading of the bill, it would reduce U.S. carbon emissions only 4-7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (the current IPCC mandate is 25-40 percent by 2020, in order to stave off the worst anticipated impacts of climate change), and give away a huge chunk of pollution credits to industry, (instead of auctioning off all permits from the start) -- which would seem to undercut the notion of polluters paying for their pollution.
UPDATE: Joe Romm at ClimateProgress sees it very differently:
No doubt many environmentalists and progressives will be unhappy with the amount of money that appear to go to polluters. But in fact, most of that money goes to regulated entities, and the regulators can and will make sure that the money goes to consumers and businesses, as well as energy efficiency programs, and not windfall profits...The bottom line for me is that I just don’t see the allocations as a reason to oppose this bill or indeed as a reason not to strongly support it.
Plastic, Paper, and the Pitfalls of Carbon Blinkers
Published May 14, 2009 @ 01:07PM PT
The "plastic or paper?" bag debate is a great example how it's possible to miss the big picture in a quest to cut our carbon footprints. The excess of of greenhouse gas created by human activity is ultimately a symptom of two larger, intertwined problems: how we generate energy to make the stuff we use and the food we eat. Getting too involved in relatively small-impact personal choices is like wearing blinkers.
Last week I posted a myth-buster on whether it was better for curbing global warming to schlep your groceries home in plastic bags, paper bags, or cloth bags?
Trick question! The answer was none of the above. Because the amount of energy it takes to produce the food in the bag usually far outstrips the energy involved in making, shipping, and disposing of the bag itself.
So when faced with a "paper or plastic" choice, I argued that from the perspective of stopping global warming -- and allowing for having forgotten your cloth bag at home in the first place -- your brainwave calories would be better burned on figuring out how to cook with less meat and dairy that day, since animal husbandry accounts for about 20 percent -- a full fifth -- of all the human-propelled greenhouse gas creation around the globe.
This conclusion raised some objections. Change.org member Leonard (who, full disclosure, is an old friend of mine) wrote:
Turns out calculating energy content of foods is much more complex than pop culture cliches lead you to believe. Tropical foods can have lower carbon footprint because they often use less intensive ag methods and meat can often have lower carbon footprint than beans. Adding to the public hysteria over food miles only distracts from global warming with market protectionism and the meat vs. veg thing creates a division in people who should all be working together to save the planet. The only reliable rule of thum for carbon footprint is price. Now that energy is the biggest cost to bring a product to market, the cost will reflect the carbon footprint. Buy cheaper stuff, buy less stuff. It's that simple.
Now I don't think the facts support the thesis that whatever's cheapest has the lowest carbon footprint (sorry, Lenny!), because the costs of our food are often masked by both domestic agriculture subsidies (which my fellow Change.org blogger Natasha Chart covers over at Sustainable Food) and international trade agreements that artificially drive down prices.
Unfortunately, "food miles" don't supply a reliable benchmark either. As I wrote last year, research suggests the energy expended on transportation makes up only around 10 percent of the total energy used -- thus the total greenhouse gases emitted -- to produce food and get it to consumers. 83 percent is used in farm production.
What I also suggested, however, is that there are benefits to buying local food to consider: building community, keeping money in the local economy, keeping local lands in agriculture instead of seeing them developed into houses or strip malls. As Marion Nestle at The Atlantic recently put it, "more physical activity, "social capital" (the conversations and other transactions between consumers and farmers), income that stays in the community, and--not least--food that is fresher and tastes better."
Sure, personal choices matter. But being selective about what to get worked up about matters as least as much. So conserve mental energy by bringing your reusable cloth shopping bag to the grocery store, thereby sidestepping the pernicious "paper or plastic?" conundrum entirely while you reduce your carbon footprint. And don't stress out over the climate impact of a local apple vs one from the other side of the country.
Now that you've saved some energy, use it pay more attention to what our legislators are doing on the the most important energy transformation of all -- from fossil fuels to clean fuels. Negotiations continue on the important, if flawed, Waxman-Markey climate and energy legislation are still underway, and Big Oil, Gas and Coal interests are seeking to weaken it as much as they can.
