Climate Progress

Converting coal to a liquid fuel like diesel is a bad idea for the climate, as previously noted. The good news is that the new Congress will be far more skeptical of the idea than the old one.

“Democrats’ Climate Test Could Hamper DOD Push For Alternative Fuels,” is how Energy Washington (subs. req’d) put it:

The Defense Department’s push to find alternative fuel sources could face a tough hurdle if the new Democratic leadership in Congress closely scrutinizes the climate impacts of controversial technologies, such as coal-based Fischer-Tropsch refining, that DOD is considering, observers say.

The article goes on to explain:

(more…)

The New York Times recently reported a sad fact summed up in the headline: “Budgets Falling in Race to Fight Global Warming.” (subs. req’d) reporter Andrew Revkin notes, “research into energy technologies by both government and industry has not been rising, but rather falling.”

The article is important and well worth reading in its entirety. Unlike many articles on this subject, it does not neglect the critical area of energy efficiency, and cites John Holdren, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

The most immediate gains could come simply by increasing energy efficiency. If efficiency gains in transportation, buildings, power transmission and other areas were doubled from the longstanding rate of 1 percent per year to 2 percent … that could hold the amount of new nonpolluting energy required by 2100 to the amount derived from fossil fuels in 2000 –a huge challenge, but not impossible.

The article reflects a tension in the scientific and energy communities between those who believe the solution to global warming is developing new technologies, and those who believe we have to begin taking action now deploying existing technologies. I think the correct position was well summed up by Tony Blair in 2005:

We need to invest on a large scale in existing technologies AND to stimulate innovation into new low-carbon technologies for deployment in the longer term.

There really is no competition between technology research and technology deployment. Existing technology can go a long way towards buying us time to develop new technologies, but all the breakthroughs in the world won’t help us if we dither so long that we pass critical points of no return. The time to act is now.

“Rice Moves Energy Concerns To Top Of U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda” is the headline in Energy Washington (subs. req’d) today. The article explains:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has decided to move energy issues to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy, establishing a new global energy coordinator post and changing the scope of two existing undersecretary positions so they can engage directly on energy issues, according to congressional and diplomatic sources. The energy coordinator would act to bolster U.S. policy toward energy consumer and producer nations while establishing greater inter-agency cooperation, according to these sources.

Energy certainly warrants more focus by the State Department, but what we really needed was a headline reading “Rice Moves Climate Concerns To Top Of U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda.”

Unfortunately, that seems unlikely in this administration, so such a move would probably just get her fired, which I guess would make her fried Rice.

Columnist Samuelson’s attack on the UK’s important Stern Commission Report does more than merely ignore key greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies. Samuelson titles his piece “Greenhouse Guessing,” because he (mistakenly) thinks that determining the impact of global warming is a guessing game:

The other great distortion in Stern’s report involves global warming’s effects. No one knows what these might be, because we don’t know how much warming might occur, when, where or how easily people might adapt. Stern’s horrific specter distills many of the most terrifying guesses, including some imagined for the 22nd century, and implies that they’re imminent. The idea is to scare people while reassuring them that policies to avert calamity, if started now, would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

Two points must be made. First, a great many people know what the effects of global warming will be. They are called climate scientists. And most of them have been increasingly warning about the same kind of serious climate impacts the Stern report worries about, such as mega-droughts and sea level rise up to 13 feet this century, not the next one.

Second, the phrase “we don’t know how much warming might occur,” is only true because scientists model a variety of scenarios. For instance NASA models one scenario where we start action to combat climate change immediately, which has relatively moderate impacts, and a business-as-usual case (BAU) where we delay serious action, which leaves to future generations massive sea level rise (ultimately 80 feet or more) and horrific species extinction.

If we listen to Samuelson, we end up with the second scenario. Delay is the one sure way to turn “terrifying guesses” into terrifying impacts.

After writing an entire column on oil without mentioning global warming, Samuelson writes an entire column on the supposedly high cost of tackling global warming without mentioning key solutions, such as energy efficiency.

Samuelson attacks the UK’s Stern Report in a column titled “Greenhouse Guessing.” He claims

With today’s technologies, we don’t know how to cut greenhouse gases in politically and economically acceptable ways. The world’s 1,700 or so coal-fired power plants — big emitters of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas — are a cheap source of electricity.

But for Samuelson, “today’s technologies” to replace coal consist entirely of solar power, wind power, and nuclear power. While solar and wind are certainly more viable than he thinks, the egregious mistake is to ignore the most cost-effective strategy for reducing emissions — simply using energy more efficiently.

This is a common mistake, as we have seen. In fact, many major studies, including one by five national laboratories, have shown that for we could achieve significant carbon reductions without raising the nation’s total energy bill. Those studies include an aggressive set of policies to promote energy-efficient technologies that can pay for their extra cost through reduced energy bills.

Samuelson says, “It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming.” His piece does little to improve the dialogue.

Yes, it is absolutely true. It was even reported in a major newspaper.

OK. The major newspaper was Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald and the story was about the risk posed to the Australian bush from global-warming induced heat and drought. But I couldn’t resist the headline. And the story makes clear that the increase in wildfires Americans are already experiencing from global warming is poised to become a major worldwide phenomenon.

In fact, Australian scientists found that if greenhouse gas emissions increase to the high end of current projections (which they will if we don’t reverse climate policy soon), the probabilities of bushfires “go through the roof so extensively that we probably won’t actually see bushfires then because we will already have completely burned the bush.”

No, global warming is not going to lead to the firing of President Bush, but it will lead to more and more bushfires (and wildfires) until we put a torch to the do-nothing policies of our Bush.

What do the election results mean for climate policy?

Congressional Quarterly (subs. req’d) reported earlier this week:

If Democrats take Congress, the energy industry can expect an effort to repeal tax breaks, a renewed debate on climate change, and a push for policies that promote alternative fuel sources and crack down on price-gouging, say top Democrats on the House and Senate energy committees.

“Renewed debate” is a scary phrase, since debate won’t solve the dangerous threat posed by unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases. The article quotes top House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrat John D. Dingell of Michigan:

Dingell also said he expected to hold hearings on climate change, an issue with an impact on auto emissions. But any action would likely have to come in the form of international cooperation, he said.

We need more than hearings and debate. Certainly the ultimate solution to the climate problem requires international cooperation. But the other major industrialized countries have already begun taking action under the Kyoto protocol. The U.S. needs to take action NOW because we are the richest and most polluting country–and have no credibility with the rest of the world when it comes to pledging action internationally.

Even if the Bush Administration vetoes any serious climate legislation and continues its policy of inaction, Congressional action will send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we are ready to join the fight once we have a new president in 2009.

While the mid-term elections get all the media coverage in this country, much of the rest of the world is focused on the major international climate conference going on in Nairobi, Kenya.

Sadly, the Bush Administration continues its “stay the course” policy of refusing to take action to prevent catastrophic global warming:

“I certainly got no indication (from the Bush administration) that there’s any change in our position, nor is there likely to be during this presidency,” U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson said.

While Climate Progress would love to have attended, you can get daily blogging from Nairobi from the World Resources Institute blog. They are not only providing daily updates, but have excellent background information on exactly what this conference is and on what its agenda is (and should be).

Global warming is poised to make this “The Century of Drought.” How ironic then that the two countries racing to see who will produce the most greenhouse gas emissions — China and the United States — are already in the grips of extended droughts.

Here is the U.S., with the browns and reds showing the severest areas of drought (although the U.S. is, fortunately, much improved from where it was during the height of summer):

Here is China:

And the planet has only warmed about 0.8°C in the past century. What will these pictures look like on our current path, where we could easily warm four times as much this century or more?

This is a race with no winners and it is time for us to join the race to save the climate.

Global warming means that icebreaker ships will increasingly be able to traverse the fabled Northwest passage. As the Washington Post reports:

A relentless climb of temperature — 5 degrees in 30 years — is shrinking the Arctic ice and reawakening dreams of a 4,000-mile shortcut just shy of the North Pole, passing beside the Arctic’s beckoning oil and mineral riches.

When will the passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the Canadian Archipelago be “open to shipping all summer because of the ceaseless warming.” Some say it will still be many decades, while “Canada’s defense agency says 2015.” Given that global warming appears to be happening faster than most experts expected, I wouldn’t bet against the defense agency.

The Arctic has enormous oil resources, but, of course, the burning of oil is one of the principal sources of human-generated greenhouse gases. So If you look up “irony” in some not-so-distant-future dictionary, you may well see a picture of an oil tanker in ice-free polar waters filling up on an Arctic oil well.

Let’s hope that is not the ship of things to come.