Climate Progress

The webcast of Al Gore’s joint House committee testimony this morning just ended, probably so that Gore can grab something to eat before he testifies in front of the Senate EPW committee this afternoon. Gore exuded intelligence this morning — he was beyond well-versed in the diplomatic, scientific, economic, environmental, political and moral issues at hand.

After also watching the treatment of James Hansen at yesterday’s House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, I’m still grappling with how smeared Hansen was versus how well-received Gore was.

Complaints that science should not meddle in politics and that politics should not meddle in science commonly surround the global warming predicament. But we are witnessing a rare, sensitive, and urgent overlap in which both actors are equally critical. I realize that Gore is one of the politicians’ own and has held an executive title more prestigious than theirs, but I remain confounded at the demand for sound science yet the frankly childish treatment of Hansen.

I do not mean to erode the value of Gore or his testimony. I was truly celebrating the feeling that the Members were listening or at least appreciating Gore’s recommendations. To answer one of David Roberts’ preliminary questions, his policy suggestions were bold.

Gore encouraged an immediate freeze on carbon emissions (yes, it is that serious!) and a revenue neutral tax shift to discourage pollution (and encourage work). He also recommended that we enter the global conversation again and aggressively pull forward the 2012 start-date of Kyoto’s second phase to 2010, a date tailored to our domestic political circumstances. According to Rep. Inglis (R-S.C.), we need to do the right thing “even if nobody’s watching.”

Overall, Gore suggests a comprehensive package, including higher CAFÉ standards, a cap-and-trade system on the electricity grid, and a ban on new coal plants that cannot capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

As for the economics, Gore says its time to internalize the external, meaning incorporate the environmental and other costs of pollution into its market value. Citing Amory Levins, in terms of the economic costs, we’ve got the sign (+/-) wrong. We should view this as the greatest opportunity to profitably overhaul our way of life and our economy.

As for the politics, Gore encourages us to expand what is feasible, to think outside the box, to push our known boundaries because this problem is larger than what we have known and the sky is the limit.

Can’t wait for the EPW hearing.

Amy runs a blog for the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research. On my post answering Drudge’s questions to Gore, she writes:

Hilariously, three of the four answers the Climate Progress blog suggests duck firm answers to the question being asked.

But if you go back to my original post, you’ll be hard-pressed to know which three answers she is talking about. I don’t think the answer to any of the questions could be clearer. She herself cites only part of one answer in her post, the answer about nuclear energy:

“If a significant price for carbon makes nuclear attractive to utilities and financiers, and if the plants meet the necessary safety and environmental codes, and if the country can finally agree on a place to put the nuclear waste, then new nuclear plants may well make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country….”

She then writes:

If, if, if, and “may well.” Why does the suggested answer contain four qualifers?

It contains four qualifiers because there are many reasons that nobody has ordered a new nuclear plant in this country for decades and we can’t just cram them down the throat of the public until and unless they make sense. [Gore’s actual answer in the House hearing was shorter and sweeter — nukes may play a role, but probably not a big role because they are so costly.] Amy then writes:

Wouldn’t 700 new nuclear plants reduce carbon dioxide emissions even if Congress refused (and wisely so!) to have Washington control the public’s carbon dioxide emissions?

She hasn’t read my book (and unwisely so!), and thus she doesn’t know that the 700 new nukes are built worldwide over 50 years. The part of my answer she cut out explains that the U.S. can cut emissions sharply without building new nukes. Apparently any answer other than “yes” or “no” constitutes ducking a question to Amy.

So who is Amy Ridenour and why is she so confused about Climate Change? Hilariously, I’ve answered the first question but ducked the second.

Al Gore is testifying on Capitol Hill twice on Wednesday–before John Dingell’s House Energy and Commerce Committee and Barbara Boxer’s Senate Environment Committee. According to the Drudge Report (link may only be was temporary),

Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT — question that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!

Here are the questions, which would not cause a fifth grader to scramble, but I am flattered to make the list:

Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

ANSWER: We have 10 years from NOW to start acting, if we are to avoid catastrophic warming. For two decades I have been saying we need to act, but it is only because we have delayed for so long that we now have only 10 years to start acting.

Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

ANSWER: If you have read Dr. Romm’s book, Hell and High Water, then you know he writes:

“The nation needs to put in place mandatory carbon dioxide controls. If a significant price for carbon makes nuclear attractive to utilities and financiers, and if the plants meet the necessary safety and environmental codes, and if the country can finally agree on a place to put the nuclear waste, then new nuclear plants may well make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country.”

Compared to most Americans, Californians emit under one third the carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour consumed while paying the same annual bill, and they do so while getting a lower share of their power from nuclear energy. “That’s why federal electricity policy should focus on establishing a price for carbon dioxide, promoting energy-efficiency, cogeneration, and renewable energy, and accelerating coal gasification together with carbon capture and storage. Those strategies can take us as far as we need to go on emissions reductions in the utility sector for the next few decades.”

That view seems entirely reasonable to me.

Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)

ANSWER: No.

Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

The question is not factually based.

(more…)

Climate change is a likely contributer to phenomenal megafires that are “impossible to extinguish short of rain or divine intervention” and that have only really appeared in the last few years.

While they have burned all over the globe, Australia has paid particular attention. For years, Australia has experienced severe drought that has forced them to rethink their water management and policies (or lack thereof) addressing global warming. Now, they have to rethink how they have historically handled wildfires.

One official fears that may mean breaking policies intended to protect the forests. Certainly, as global warming intensifies and impacts more, environmental solutions will have to get creative.

Take, for example, the latest from NOAA: Incident Meteorologists who have traveled to support the Australian Bureau of Meteorology fight against the wildfires, which have killed at least a dozen people and hundreds of farm animals.

It appears as though we are willing to forge an international partnership to treat the symptoms. Now we must do the same to treat the disease.

Steve Connor from the UK’s The Independent summarized what we learned in 2006 with the article “Review of the year: Global warming” subheaded with “Our worst fears are exceeded by reality.”

According to Connor [original link unavailable, so I found this reprint]

2006 will be remembered by climatologists as the year in which the potential scale of global warming came into focus. And the problem can be summarised in one word: feedback.

Connor has collected and looked at research from the last year on positive and negative feedback cycles, and he lays some out in layman’s language. Yet his reporting is not diluted at all. To the contrary, it’s honest, and that only magnifies its fear-factor.

Basically, scientists are just now coming to understand the potential of positive feedback cycles on global warming - how melting permafrost will release more greenhouse gases, how ocean in the place of Arctic ice will absorb more heat, and how the carbon sinks our carbon cycle relies on will lose their capacity to take in carbon dioxide.

Connor barely touches on what sort of implications that may have on shifting global populations, but to get the full effect of his article and the science, we encourage you to just read it.

When it comes to tackling greenhouse gases, it seems there are the United States and then just the states. Since our national government lacks any substantive policy, let us turn instead to the local efforts.

At the forefront, of course, is California, which is why British Prime Minister Tony Blair went directly to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss climate change solutions. Various other states have begun or completed action plans.

And it’s a good thing, too, because “among the top 75 emitters of global warming pollutants, 34 are US states,” as noted by an Environmental Finance piece, “The good news from the states.” The articles gleefully recognizes the state leadership (and is loaded with links to state-specific information).

A central question is whether tightening emission allowances also tightens the checkbook. So take a look at estimates from Arizona’s plan:

Conclusion? That these small steps–shall we say baby steps?–by states against climate change certainly will not lead to “an undesirable crawl” in the economy.

Here’s an interesting bit of trivia: ‘General Motors is one of the leading users of renewable energy in the North American manufacturing sector, with renewable energy sources representing about 2 percent of its energy use.‘

So why is GM reducing the energy consumed in its factories and not its cars?

A possible answer could be found in Geneva, where GM unveiled the Corsa OPC, a small sports coupe with distinguishing fuel economy. It’s fast, it’s efficient, and it has no future in the U.S. because our car market is so different than that of Europe that GM is not even bothering to introduce the car here.

The Washington Post points this out in their article “Why You Can’t Buy This Car“, which discusses the dual personalities the car manufacturing company indulges on either side of the Atlantic. The primary differences are gas prices (we pay $2.50 versus costs upward of $5/gallon for gasoline in Europe) and our thirst for all things huge - cars, SUVs, and trucks.

There is also the issue of politics. Certainly one thing to keep your eye on this Congress is the push on CAFE standards, which is causing some of the big guys to throw their weight around on Capitol Hill.

The National Journal asked 113 members of Congress, “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?” 95 percent of the Democrats polled replied “Yes” and a mere 13 percent of Republicans did.

The percentages are down from the last poll, but fortunately these sad numbers only reflect 113 of the over 500 men and women of Congress.

A second detail to note is that many of the comments left do not entirely refute anthropogenic warming. One Republican “No” added that “Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but all scientific studies are leaning that way”; another that “The key phrase is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’; and yet another that “There is a possibility that man’s activity, while certainly part of the problem, is not the sole reason for global warming.” The statements indicate that the wording of the question too strictly and therefore wrongly classifies policymakers.

A second question posed to participants asked, “Which of these actions to reduce global warmign could you possibly support?” The clear winner was Increased Spending on Alternative Fuels, as it received the okay from 95 percent of the Democrats and 71 percent of the Republicans. No other policy option, including mandatory emissions limits and a carbon tax, received the same bi-partisan support.

An observation to emerge from this question also underscores how the political parties tend to differ on the next steps. 90 percent of the Republicans polled favor more reliance on nuclear energy, while only 58 percent of the Demoracts do. Conversely, 45 percent of the Republicans favor higher CAFE standards but 90 percent of Democrats do.

We know global climate change is a fact and so with that in mind, and Democrats in Congress, let’s see some higher CAFE standards.

Helping raise awareness and instigate mobilization on climate change are carbon neutral companies that sell offsets to greenhouse gas emissions. You may recognize the phrase from the Oscars or even Fox News on Monday.

On YouTube, you can find a clip of ClimateProgress’ Joseph Romm discussing carbon neutrality with Shepard Smith on Studio B, where it is encouraging to see the network not debating the science but exploring some solutions.

You can also hear Joseph Romm on air with Bob Edwards reviewing other global warming solutions like energy efficiency, renewable portfolio standards, and repealing subsidies for oil companies. The entire clip must be purchased, but you can get a taste of the conversation from the sample.

Lastly, MIT’s Technology Review references Romm’s books Hell and High Water and The Hype about Hydrogen to respond to BMW’s new Hydrogen 7 model. In contrast to the above solutions, we should not be impressed with BMW’s unveiling or the direction that hydrogen fuel takes our environment and energy use.

William Broad’s critique of An Inconvenient Truth as mistake filled has far more mistakes in it than Gore’s movie. RealClimate and Grist set the record straight.