Climate Progress

E&E News PM (subs. req’d) has a taste of what it will be like when progressives run things:

“Green” power transmission to move renewable energy to population centers will be part of the economic stimulus bill Democrats move early next year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today.

Finally, we can start to think strategically about how the government can enable the future, rather than disable the future, as we’ve seen for the past eight years. The government was critical to enabling most of the key infrastructure efforts in this country — the railway system, the electric grid, the interstate highway system, and the Internet.

The next big thing is a smart, green power grid that enables rapid growth of efficiency and demand management, wind power, solar baseload, and plug in hybrids (see “An introduction to the core climate solutions“). That grid is arguably the biggest bottleneck to the green transition.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have been quite critical of the mainstream media for using the global recession to attack clean tech (see “Global recession? Must be time for the media’s alternative-energy backlash“).

One reason the storyline was lame is that a recession this deep is going to hit all new capital projects (see “Note to media: Credit crunch kills dirty stuff, too“). A second reason is that there had been no evidence that clean tech was being harder hit than any other sector and some reason to believe it would be hit less hard (see “Despite market downturn, cleantech venture investment hits record $2.6B in 3rd quarter“). And, of course, the election of a Barack Obama means there is going to be a massive infusion of funding for clean tech.

While it is premature to say that green tech won’t suffer seriously from the recession — after all, we don’t know how long and strong the slowdown will be — the WSJ acknowledged today it may have have been premature in proclaiming trouble for one of the biggest recent winners in the clean tech business:

Read the rest of this entry »

I have argued that Obama won’t be able to ratify any global climate treaty that is likely to come out of Copenhagen next December. Since the only thing worse than no global climate treaty in 2009 is a treaty that the President can’t get ratified, Obama, I believe, should be lowering expectations rather than making promises he can’t keep.

Greenwire reports (subs. req’d) that Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a former senior Clinton administration climate official, said something quite similar (though for slightly different reasons):

“We do not want to repeat Kyoto, where you go and negotiate something and then you can not deliver it…. That’s the worst of possible worlds, because nothing happens.”

… Claussen’s Pew Center has been among the most vocal of the groups trying to lower expectations on the timing for a new international climate agreement given the state of play in Washington. Claussen said she does not think Obama and Congress can finish cap-and-trade legislation in 2009. And she wants the Copenhagen deadline pushed back to give the United States the time it needs to finish its climate law.

Claussen and her colleagues said European officials have told them privately that they are aware of the tight U.N. schedule. But they cannot say this publicly for fear it will disrupt momentum toward a final climate deal. While Claussen credits Obama for giving some important signals on his position, she would like to see him go a step further and tell international officials that the United States won’t be ready to negotiate and agree to a final climate pact by Copenhagen.

If expectations are not lowered before Copenhagen, Claussen said, she worries that the U.N. talks could collapse, generating a fresh round of antagonism toward the United States.

“That,” she warned, “really doesn’t benefit anybody.”

I have talked to a number of colleagues with congressional experience who are skeptical that something as complicated as a national cap & trade bill could be completed in 2009, especially given everything else on Obama’s plate.

I believe the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process can’t survive in its current form. But even if you think it can, Obama should try to delay Copenhagen until after there is a U.S. climate bill. It would be crazy for him to commit to something in international talks in 2009 that he can’t get through his own Congress as a domestic bill in 2010.

And I would repeat that if a Copenhagen Protocol does not include a binding commitment by China to cap emissions by 2020 — with some restrictions on how fast emissions can grow between now and then — it has no chance whatsoever of getting 67 votes in the U.S. Senate at any time during Obama’s term(s) in office. I would go even further: Such a flawed global climate treaty in 2009 might actually undermine chances for a U.S. domestic bill in 2010.

E&E News has more opinions on this subject:

Read the rest of this entry »

A guest post by Eban Goodstein, Professor of Economics at Lewis & Clark College and Project Director of the National Teach-in on Global Warming Solutions.

One thing you can do to stop global warming right now is tell a teacher–a friend, your kid’s teacher, a cousin, or a colleague–about The National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions, set for Thursday, February 5^th.

With the election over, it is tempting to assume that the hard work is done. But the same coalition that has stifled progress to date–the fossil fuel industry, along with “government is the problem” politicians–are still in Washington, still fighting to preserve the “business as usual” that unchecked, is on track to destroy half the life on the planet. The only thing powerful enough to overcome DC gridlock is a mobilized American public–so get moving, and tell a teacher (or a leader at your church, synagogue or mosque) to join the Teach-In!

This Wednesday, 12/03 you can join Stanford climate scientist Dr. Stephen Schneider on our teach-in organizing call, at noon EST. Steve will update us on the scientific backdrop facing the new President in the first 100 days.

Call in number is 1-218-486-8700, passcode 020509.

Participation in the teach-in is easy:

Read the rest of this entry »

The NYT reports:

One of the highest tides in its history brought Venice to a virtual halt, rekindling a debate over a plan to build moveable flood barriers in an effort to save the lagoon city from high tides.

City officials said the tide peaked at 61 inches (156 centimeters), well past the 40-inch (110-centimeter) flood mark, as strong winds pushed the sea into the city.

Venice has been plagued by flooding for a long time, of course, in part because it has been sinking. But 156 cm flooding just happens to be right in the middle of the most recent scientific estimate for human-caused climate change (see “Stunning new sea level rise research, Part 1: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100“). So Venice give us a glimpse of the whole planet’s future.

And that future is triage – figuring out which coastal cities can be saved in a practical and affordable manner. Venice has pursued the expensive MOSE project (Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico or Experimental Electromechanical Module), albeit slowly:

Read the rest of this entry »

It is all but inconceivable that Obama can deliver the 67 votes in the Senate needed to ratify a global climate treaty — no matter what happens in the 12 months between Poznań and Copenhagen. And the only thing worse than no global climate treaty in 2009 is a treaty that Obama can’t get ratified.

Yes, Democrats have expanded their majority in the Senate, edging closer and closer to the magical 60 votes needed to stop filibusters. But the conservatives in Congress are stuck in 1985 (1885?), unwilling or unable to acknowledge the now painfully obvious reality of global warming or the remarkable advances that have been made in clean technologies.

Conservative Senators lined up as a solid block against the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner climate bill (see “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 6: What the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill debate tells us“). Worse, the GOP seems to think that among all the losing issues they pushed in their historic drubbing at the polls, their “drill baby drill” message was actually a winner. As one post-election story put it

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here.

I thought it was a very good event. If you haven’t heard Tom Friedman, Governor Ed Rendell, or Carol Browner speak before, I highly recommend it.

Here is the Center for American Progress’s “A Strategy for Green Recovery.” The jobs analysis is here.

Some enviros are annoyed that PEBO chose a national security adviser (NSA), retired Marine Gen. James Jones, who has emphasized energy security concerns over global warming — see, for instance, this lame transition report on energy Jones just oversaw for the US Chamber of Commerce.

The Politico actually just interviewed me on this very subject, and I told them I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep over it [and you all thought they wouldn’t talk to me after this, but then again they mostly ignored what I said in their story, as evidenced by the headline “Jones gives hope to energy companies.”]

Let’s be clear here: Of the national security team, the NSA is all but irrelevant on the key issues of climate and domestic energy policy. Only the Secretary of State (SOS) really matters — and here PEBO chose a grand slam home run for climate science advocates (CSAs).

[Note: With a new green and progressive administration starting to take the reins of power, I thought I’d begin (another) series, this one to share my experience in the executive branch. I spent five years at the Department of Energy in the 1990s — two years as special assistant for policy and planning to the deputy secretary and three years as principal deputy assistant secretary (PDAS) in the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) including six months as acting assistant secretary. BTW, the feds love acronyms.]

Back to the NSA and energy/climate policy. The coverage on this issue has not been informative. E&E News begins its irrelevantly headlined story, “Obama’s security adviser seeks offshore drilling, shale production” (subs. req’d):

Read the rest of this entry »

The live webstream is here. It starts at noon EST.

I can’t live blog it for obvious reasons.

The event will be also be posted for appointment viewing a few hours after it concludes (here).

Here is CAP’s “A Strategy for Green Recovery.” The jobs analysis is here.

Every few years, people need to be reminded that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion lasts a long, long, long time. How long?

A 2005 study by Geophysicist David Archer, “Fate of fossil fuel CO₂ in geologic time,” (subs. req’d.) concluded that a large fraction of the CO2 emitted by humans last well in excess of 1000 years:

The mean lifetime of anthropogenic CO₂ is dominated by the long tail, resulting in a range of 30–35 kyr.

That’s why we need to stop and reverse the growth of fossil fuel emissions immediately (see “Dr. Hansen to Dr. Merkel: Carbon is forever — so ban new traditional coal plants now“). That’s why we can’t have climate regulations that let companies keep burning coal while they buy rip-offsets.

In the interest of reminding people of this central fact of climate science, Nature online has published, “Carbon is forever.” Turns out Archer has a book out, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate, which has this useful figure:

Read the rest of this entry »