Climate Progress

Scientists concerned about effects of global warming on infectious diseases – American Society for Microbiology. Quotable Quote: “Environmental changes have always been associated with the appearance of new diseases or the arrival of old diseases in new places. With more changes, we can expect more surprises.”

Dingell: Climate Change Bill Will Pass - Forbes.com. Legislation to fight global warming is on its way by year’s end!

Smithsonian Accused of Altering Exhibit - ABSNews.com. Why is this not surprising?

Read all about it on Grist’s blog.

As discussed last week, Planet Gore’s Sterling Burnett was upset with the media for supposedly ignoring “the recent reports by MIT and the CBO detailing the substantial costs and regressive nature of the costs that are estimated to arise if any of the current domestic proposals restricting carbon emissions to combat global warming are enacted.”

Given that the MIT report in fact concluded the exact opposite of what Sterling claimed — and given the fact that the National Review typically doesn’t complain about the regressive nature of, say, tax cuts for the wealthy — I’m guessing you won’t be surprised to learn that the CBO report also comes to a different conclusion than Sterling claims.

I should also point out that, as a minor instance of disinfotainment, the CBO report does not in fact look at the “costs that are estimated to arise if any of the current domestic proposals restricting carbon emissions to combat global warming are enacted.” No, it merely looks at the impact of various ways of implementing a 15% cut in carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 — which is part of no current proposal.

This may seem like a tiny mistake by PG but it isn’t really, because the entire point of the CBO analysis is not to judge existing proposals but rather to show that choices about how a cap & trade system is set up have a big effect on a proposal’s impact on the economy and regressivity. An unintelligent system would be somewhat regressive, since “lower-income households tend to spend a larger fraction of their income than wealthier households do and because energy products account for a bigger share of their spending.”

You could actually make the entire system progressive by auctioning off the carbon dioxide permits and using the proceeds to make a lump-sum payment of equal size for all households. Somehow I can’t really imagine Planet Gore would endorse such a strategy.

(more…)

This story deserves singling out because it is on an important but too-neglected subject — the connection between energy and water.

Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water - International Herald Tribune. Key point: Nuclear power “requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures.”

Factoid of the day: “During the extreme heat of 2003 in France, 17 nuclear reactors operated at reduced capacity or were turned off.”

An Australian report noted that there are “few seaside sites available” for siting nuclear plants but warned “that building nuclear plants inland would be a major threat to water supplies in a country already stricken by drought.”

Schwarzenegger accuses Bush on global warming — Washington Post Op-Ed and Reuters story. Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Jodi Rell (R-CT): “It’s bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public’s health and welfare.” They write scathingly of the President:

Another discouraging sign came just last week, when President Bush issued an executive order to give federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and determine what can be done about them.

To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable.

Dems Better on Energy, but Not by Enough - CBSNews.com reprinting a column from the Nation. Quotable quote: “In sum, Democrats call for a dramatic change of course from Bush’s policies, and their rhetoric touts a compelling national mission…. No one has yet portrayed the scope and urgency of this national imperative. A bold leader would summon the nation to action.”

And the ever important green celebrity of the week: Leonardo DiCaprio. The headline hits on the hot button issue for would-be jet-setting environmentalists: “No more private jets for me, DiCaprio tells Cannes.”

Probably half of all the media queries I get these days concern hydrogen — thanks to my last book, The Hype about Hydrogen. Today’s New York Times Magazine has an exceedingly long article, “The Zero-Energy Solution,” on a solar-hydrogen home. The author refers to me as “an environmental pragmatist,” no doubt because I don’t automatically embrace every environmental solution that comes along, but judge each on its technical and practical merit.

I have written a number of articles arguing hydrogen has been wildly overhyped as an energy and climate solution, when in fact it holds little promise of being a cost-effective greenhouse gas reduction strategy for at least the first half of the century, if not forever. Since ten years ago I ran the Federal office that does all the hydrogen research, I am one of the go-to guys for a skeptical quote or two.

This article is no exception, and the author accurately writes, Romm “says he believes that the problems of global warming are urgent and that hydrogen technologies are too remote in time to be of any real help.”

Somewhat annoyingly, the author focuses on my concerns about hydrogen safety, which I think are quite genuine for home hydrogen production — but which pale in comparison to the basic technical, cost, and practical considerations for a solar hydrogen home. Still, I stand by every statement, including, “The last thing you want is somebody making hydrogen in his garage.” I did add, though it didn’t make publication, that “I wouldn’t want someone making gasoline in their garage either.”

The article has some hype but is still worth a read as it presents both sides.

If this were the daily sunset you had gotten used to growing up, you would understand the hesitancy of even Bill McKibben, a renowned environmentalist, to okay wind turbines on the horizon, interfering with bird migration in order to generate electricity.

However, in an opinion article in which McKibben confesses his sentiment, entitled “One world, one problem“, he ultimately resolves,

In this world, the threat to that landscape, and to those birds, comes far more from rapid shifts in temperature than from a few dozen towers.

McKibben goes on to write a testament to the gravity of climate change and its meaning for the environmental movement, which the existential call for action is uniting. No matter your top concern - clean water, dolphin populations, crop survival, energy consumption - there is a link to climate change and a bigger picture to keep in mind.

Popularized by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the term “Californication” actually refers to the surge of Californians migrating up the West Coast following the opening of a major highway. In this context, we’re hoping we can Californicate the state’s climate change and energy policies to the rest of the Union.

Since the 1970s, California has kept its per capita energy use at a level rate, using primarily energy efficiency programs. Over time and with minimal spending, the cost of electricity under the programs is 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. That’s an outstanding rate compared to traditional or even carbon-free energy sources.

I discuss California’s unique route in Chapter 7 of Hell and High Water. You can access the information from the California Energy Commission or this PowerPoint with graphics.

When our country gets serious about addressing climate change and energy dependence, we need active national attention and proliferation of California’s policies.

(more…)

A good op-ed on an important policy measure with bipartisan support. Quotable Quote:

The low carbon fuel standard differs significantly from President Bush’s proposal to indiscriminately expand “alternative fuels” without paying attention to their environmental consequences. His plan would likely bring us coal-based liquid fuels and more of today’s corn-based ethanol, but it does not provide the incentives and rules needed to transform these technologies so that they can compete in energy markets that take climate change seriously.

New research finds low cost for tackling climate change. But not when that research is reported by Planet Gore. Sterling Burnett recently authored a classic example of PG’s disinfotainment. He writes:

Has the media completely lost objectivity and the search for the “truth” with regard to the issue of global warming. The latest reason that made me ponder this question arose with the “non-story” of the recent reports by MIT and the CBO detailing the substantial costs and regressive nature of the costs that are estimated to arise if any of the current domestic proposals restricting carbon emissions to combat global warming are enacted. Despite the best efforts of Senator James Inhofe , among others, to get these studies publicized, I have barely seen a mention of the findings of either of these reports in the mainstream media.

He goes on to say, “it has surprised me how economic and science reporters have also ignored the MIT and CBO reports.” The same week I read this, however, I saw a science news article on the MIT report (”Damn you, Science magazine,” as Jon Stewart might say). The article requires a subscription, but I have copied the key figure below.

I believe Science has mislabeled the figure as to which line refers to which Congressional plan — indeed the main reason the media probably didn’t cover this study more is that 1) it is quite confusing and 2) the results are not terribly exciting, since, like most studies, MIT finds a low cost for cutting emissions.

The middle line represents a 50% cut in U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 (which is relatively close to the McCain-Lieberman targets the way M.I.T. does the math). Now that is a very deep cut — a 60% cut from current levels in just four decades.

Yet even with that deep GHG cut, as the figure clearly shows, welfare — the average citizen’s wealth — drops only 1% or less through 2040. Only PG would claim that is a “substantial” cost. That is the disinformation in PG’s post. But where is the entertainment?

(more…)