Climate Progress

The more efficient use of energy remains one of the central strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Until recent, the subject has not been exciting enough to get the kind of media attention that alternative energy generation technologies, like solar, receive. But because of the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we all will ultimately have to become expert on both cleaner energy supply and energy efficiency.

A recent report highlights state regulatory mechanisms that encourage utilities to pursue customer energy efficiency programs by providing the types of financial incentives that make “cents” for the utilities. An American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) report provides a lay person’s guide to regulatory reform for energy efficiency in the utility industry. It explains industry jargon such as “lost revenues”, “demand side management programs”, “decoupling” and “shareholder incentives,” as well as detailed information on which states are offering incentives for energy efficiency programs.

The report is worth a look because more than a third of this country’s dioxide emissions (the primary human-generated greenhouse gas) come from the generation of electricity. Therefore, getting the electric utility industry to accelerate energy efficiency programs into their markets is critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Providing financial incentives that place energy efficiency programs on an equal revenue stream with traditional generation revenue allowances is a signal that gives senior level utility managers a reason to cut greenhouse gas emissions without harming the overall financial health and viability of the company.

As if it were news, a report by Intellichoice.com found that over a five-year span, the owner of a Prius saves more than $13,000 compared to the owner of a similar non-hybrid.

In fact, the savings apply “across the board,” to all 22 hybrids evaluated. What’s more, the study was the most inclusive of any yet: It factored in insurance, fuel, taxes, maintenance, and the works.

Read it to believe it, but it just confirms what many of us have been saying for years.

Reports out of Spain over the holidays indicate that Siberian bears aren’t the only ones losing sleep this winter. In the Cantabarian mountains of northern Spain, mother bears are postponing hibernation to gather food that isn’t usually available.

Experts predict that 2006 will go down as Spain’s warmest year on record. The warmer winter is causing nuts and berries to last further into the season, thus proving it “energetically worthwhile” for the bears not to hibernate and collect food instead.

In an article starring the bears, Mark Wright from the World Wide Fund for Nature commented:

I think it’s an indication of what’s to come. It shows climate change is not a natural phenomenon but something that is affecting not only on the weather, but impacting on the natural world in ways we’re only now beginning to understand.

His statement draws particular attention to the anthropogenic, or human, causes of climate change. In other words, this case and the “other seasonal freaks” mentioned in the article should have pivotal policy implications for the 110th Congress.

The “international fairness” issue is the emotional home run. Given the chance, Americans will demand that all nations be part of any international global warming treaty. Nations such as China, Mexico and India would have to sign such an agreement for the majority of Americans to support it.

–Frank Luntz, 2002

We don’t need an international treaty with rules and regulations that will handcuff the American economy or our ability to make our environment cleaner, safer and healthier.

–Frank Luntz, 2002

What country’s insatiable thirst for oil imports is most responsible for the tightening world market since the mid- 1990s? Hint: It’s not China. From 1995 to 2004, China’s annual imports grew by 2.8 million barrels a day. Ours grew 3.9 million. China sucks up about 6 percent of all global oil exports. We demand 25 percent, even though China has a billion more consumers.

In what year will China’s total contribution to climate change from burning fossil fuels surpass ours? Hint: Climate change is driven by rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and those concentrations have been driven by cumulative emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution. While China’s CO2 emissions might well exceed ours by 2010, its cumulative emissions might not surpass ours until after 2050.

(more…)

Any speech by NASA’s James Hansen deserves attention. His remarks “On Acceptance of WWF Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal” are no exception.

Two features are especially noteworthy. First, Hansen includes his slides, so you can understand what he’s saying very clearly. Second, he speaks with increasing poignancy about what we are doing to this planet:

It is an uncomfortable inconvenient scientific truth: we cannot pour into the atmosphere all of the fossil fuels that were buried in the ground over millions of years without creating a different planet, without destroying creation, without being miserable failures in our stewardship of the planet we were blessed with.

(more…)

As Pedro Moura Costa, founder of the carbon credit trading company EcoSecurities, explained:

If you pick a winner in the right technology in the search for a low carbon economy you are talking about potentially billions. It is really the holy grail.

The EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme is giving investors in the carbon market a glimpse of the future and it’s a “green goldrush.” The flood of investments in carbon trading and green technology funds has quickly created a market worth billions, and projected to be as much as $40 billion by 2012. One businessman in New York guesses that “the next Bill Gates” will be an environmental entreprenuer, someone who taps into the emerging clean technology market and moves it into homes.

Henrik Hasselknippe, manager of the carbon market analyst group PointCarbon, observed that, “[the carbon market] is increasingly a capitalist arena. The eco-warriors are being replaced by the eco-capitalists.”

While this is serious business, can’t you just envision the Monty Python skit? Eco-warriors morphing into eco-capitalists with swords that turn smoke and smog into gold revealing, at last, the Holy Grail….

We have a serious problem. America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.–President Bush, 2006

In the absence of revolutionary changes in energy policy, we are risking multiple disasters for our country that will constrain living standards, undermine our foreign- policy goals, and leave us highly vulnerable to the machinations of rogue states.–Senator Richard Lugar, 2006

Our ever- worsening addiction to oil makes America less secure. Since 1990, we have fought two wars in the Persian Gulf. We suffered a major terrorist attack funded largely by Persian Gulf oil money. Every year we send more than $250 billion overseas because we import most of our oil. Oil prices keep spiking above $70 a barrel, and gasoline above $3 a gallon. The economic lifeblood of our country is held hostage to countries that are antidemocratic and politically unstable–and to terrorists who keep targeting the world’s oil infrastructure. Price spikes above $100 a barrel (and $4 a gallon) are all but inevitable in the coming years. And many fear we may be close to seeing worldwide oil production peak and then decline, which will bring an era of steadily rising oil and gasoline prices.

It’s no wonder that politicians–even those who don’t worry about global warming–keep talking about oil. So why haven’t we taken any serious action on oil for decades? The answer is simple– reducing U.S. oil consumption requires a major government-led effort, such as much tougher mileage standards, and our political leaders have rejected such efforts (except for ones that are merely cosmetic).

The astonishing January 2006 statement by President Bush’s EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, bears repeating: “Are we going to tell people to stop driving their cars, or do we start investing in technology? That’s the answer, investing in those technologies.” This false choice leaves the nation with no oil policy except strong, empty rhetoric suggesting that the cure for our addiction to oil can be found in happy talk about future technology.

(more…)

In the House Oversight Committe’s hearing on political intereference with the scientific evidence of climate change, Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) proclaimed in disbelief and frustration that, “Today we have a planet that’s smoking!”

He, like many before him, likened the campaign to cast doubt on global warming with the tobacco industry’s campaign in the 1990s to distort information on the health impacts of smoking cigarettes.

In early 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report along those same lines, exposing the disinformation campaign by ExxonMobil which used tobacco industry-like tactics. They also published an online periodical table that serves as an A-Z Guide to Political Interference in Science, which one of the witnesses to the House hearing brought up in her testimony.

And wait, there’s more. The UCS paired up with the Government Accountability Project on a report that describes how the White House silenced scientists on climate change. Some 1,600 scientists were surveyed, but only 279 responded, 150 of which reported that they had experienced interference of some kind.

We have a planet that’s smoking and the White House is filtering. Sounds like oil isn’t our only addiction. Menthol, anyone?

More highlights from the IPCC Report.

Climate Conditions Around Us:

• “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.”

• “There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures….There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.”

• “More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts.”

• “The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour.”

• “Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has lead to increasing acidification of the ocean.”

Impacts We Can Expect in the Future:

• “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all projected scenarios.”

• “Future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation…”

• “Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.”

While we would certainly recommend everyone reading the entire IPCC Summary for Policymakers, here are some highlights:

• “The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, leading to very high confidence [a 9 out of 10 chance] that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”

• “The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely [<5% change] that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing.”

• “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

• “The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.”

• “The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 GtC per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 GtC per year in 2000-2005.”