Climate Progress

The Center for American Progress has put together two interactive maps in advance of next week’s climate meetings. They allow you to

Hover over a country to see how many metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions it emits per capita, or how many millions of tons it emits total, and whether it has ratified the Kyoto Accord. Invitees to Bush’s September 28th major emitters meeting are also marked.

I think you’ll find them useful tools.

Greenland ice melt shocks scientists — The Oregonian. A good article on the subject, with the added bonus of an explanation of how ice loss in the Arctic will affect the U.S.’s climate:

The melting removes an insulating blanket from the ocean surface, releasing warmth from the water into the cold air above as towering columns of warmer air.

Those columns appear to reorient global air flows the way a boulder falling into a stream reorients the current, said Jacob Sewall, a professor of geosciences at Virginia Tech, who has used atmospheric models to study the effect. The result is that the stream that carries storms over the West Coast of North America shifts north, turning much of California drier, and the Northwest wetter.

Calif. lawmaker chides EPA for approving coal plant - The Boston Globe. “Remarkably, EPA refused to consider the global warming effects of the plant or to require any measures to mitigate that harm, contravening a Clean Air Act mandate and ignoring EPA’s ample discretionary authority to act,” wrote Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Hefty Rebate For Backyard Wind Turbines In California - Environmental News Network. Homeowners who install a turbine that costs between $12,000 and $15,000 to purchase and install and is rated at 1.8 kiloWatts, are eligible for a $4,100 rebate from the state of California.

How fearsome must the headlines be about tomorrow before
people change their ways today?
– Nancy Gibbs, TIME

In Greenland today, the ice is thawing at a pace that is alarming climate scientists. Meantime in Washington D.C., Congress remains frozen on the issue of carbon pricing. And that may be a good thing.

Carbon pricing, as most readers of Climate Progress know, is the idea that some portion of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions should be reflected in the price consumers pay for carbon-intensive fuels. The energy that is causing global climate change would cost more than the energy that isn’t, and the marketplace would become the ally of climate stabilization.

There are two schemes on the table. The first is a carbon tax — simple, straightforward and, according to conventional wisdom, political suicide. The second approach is carbon trading. Carbon emissions would be capped; polluters would buy and sell emission permits. Carbon trading is more complex and would take longer to make a difference, but because it is not a tax, it appears to be the favored approach in Congress.

Several cap-and-trade bills have been introduced in Congress, some setting tougher goals than others. The word on the street is that the leading bill will be proposed soon by Senators Warner and Lieberman. It reportedly will call for a 15% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, compared to current levels. Therein lies the rub. Is the glass (of melted ice) half empty or half full?

(more…)

What triggered the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) about 55 million years ago, which saw the fastest period of warming documented in Earth’s geological history? The PETM is associated with a rapid rise in greenhouse gases, particularly methane — but the big question is where did the methane come from?

The most common answer has been the ocean (methane hydrates) but new research in Nature, (subs. req’d) casts doubt on the ocean theory, finding chemical evidence instead that the methane came from terrestrial sources, bogs, which were themselves stimulated by rising temperatures — an amplifying feedback. The lead author says:

“A lot of temperate and polar wetlands are going to be wetter, and of course warmer as well [because of current climate change]. That implies a switch to more anaerobic conditions which are more likely to release methane. That’s what’s predicted, and that would be a positive feedback - and we have evidence now that this is what happened.”

Indeed, research from last year found “thawing Siberian bogs are releasing more of the greenhouse gas methane than previously believed.” Why should we care about the source of the PETM?

(more…)

The renewable energy future - LA Times. “As Los Angeles creaks through its driest year on record and nervously awaits its next explosive wildfire, many wonder if global warming is already taking a toll.” Duh. Anyway, a pretty good article on the prospects for renewables in California.

Evidence of global warming surrounds a skeptic - Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Another good dissing of Lomborg, focusing on forest loss in the West. No matter what Steve says, I say you can’t have too many!

Forest nations want billions for not logging - The Sydney Morning Herald. A multibillion-dollar plan to protect forests and reduce global warming is to be backed by an alliance of nations that are home to more than 80 per cent of the world’s tropical rainforest.

A “speculative 15,000 square foot mansion in Manalapan, Fla., will be the first home of its size to be certified green by the U.S. Green Building Council and the Florida Green Building Council.”

Is that a good idea for USGBC? That’s my question to you. Obviously people are going to build big homes–and it is better if they have green features. But should USGBC single out such “eco-mansions” for positive recognition?

On the big side, the mansion has:

… eight bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, two elevators, two laundry rooms, two wine cellars (one for red, one white), a movie theater and guesthouse.

On the green side, the mansion has a:

(more…)

If you thought Greenspan was confused about energy (see Part I), his discussion of global warming in The Age of Turbulence is downright stupefying. He opens well:

There can be very little doubt that global warming is real and man-made. (p. 454)

But the next sentence is (I kid you not)

We may have to rename Glacier National Park when its glaciers disappear, in what now looks to be 2030, according to park scientists.

That’s what all the fuss is about — we’ll have to rename one of our national parks in 23 years. This is the Lomborg view. The movie version might be called A “Minor Inconvenience” — That’s Our Truth.

Greenspan then immediately launches into an extended discussion trashing cap-and-trade systems, ultimately claiming:

There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy. Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.

Unless of course jobs are created in the clean energy industry and people can balance the higher cost of energy with a more efficient use of it, as California has done. That Greenspan does not like a high price for CO2 is not surprising — how much is it really worth to avoid renaming Glacier National Park, anyway? What is stunning is that he makes this particular argument against carbon prices in the very same chapter he calls for a $3 a gallon gasoline tax!

The gas tax is both necessary and good: “we need significantly higher gasoline prices to wean us off gasoline-powered motor vehicles…. The expectation of higher gasoline prices through taxes … would galvanize large technological breakthroughs in the production of ethanol” especially cellulosic ethanol from biomass. “Alternatively, if ethanol fails and gasoline prices are high enough, plug-in hybrids will significantly displace petroleum consumption over time.” (p. 461) Dr. Greenspan — techno-optimist!

But just 6 pages earlier, his alter ego, techno-pessimist Mr. Alan, was calling a carbon price both unnecessary and evil:

(more…)

Damage to the planet ‘is already inevitable’ - The Times online (UK). “Just eight years are left for the world’s carbon dioxide emissions to peak if there is any hope of limiting temperature rises to no more than 2C (3.6F) over the next century.” Not gonna happen, if the Deniers have there way. And that means: “The choice is now between a future with a damaged world and a future with a severely damaged world,” said Professor Martin Parry, of the Met Office.

EU to give poor nations at least €50 million to deal with climate change - International Herald Tribune. The article suggests that much of the money is for adaptation (i.e. “we’re sorry we screwed you”): “to help them cope with more frequent storms, floods and drought linked to man-made climate change.” On the other hand, some funds will go to “helping poor countries set up programs that could cash in on rich nations’ carbon offsets.” Now we’re talkin’! I wanna get me some of that offset money.

Effort to Get Companies to Disclose Climate Risk - New York Times. “Two environmental groups and the financial officers of 10 states and New York City are asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose the risks that climate change may pose to their bottom lines.”

Arctic summer ice thickness halves to 1 meter - Environmental News Network. “All of these areas have previously had two meters of ice.” More evidence the Arctic will be ice free by 2030.

My discussion with Mike Tidwell on the latest in climate change news is now online here. Even better for Climate Progress readers — who get more than their fill of me — is the first interview on the show with Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

If you want the latest on the stunning loss of ice in the Arctic from one of the country’s foremost authorities, that interview is a terrific place to start.

First the good news from the New York Times:

We have ended TimesSelect. All of our Op-Ed and news columns are now available free of charge. Additionally, The New York Times Archive is available free back to 1987.

Good for them. Interestingly, even though I had paid my money to get TimesSelect, I pretty much stopped reading the stuff behind the barrier because I couldn’t connect Climate Progress readers (i.e. you) to the material. The NYT had basically taken some of their best columnists out of the global discussion. Now they are back.

Friedman has a new piece titled “Doha and Dalian” — “Doha [top] is the capital of Qatar, a tiny state east of Saudi Arabia. Dalian [bottom] is in northeast China and is one of China’s Silicon Valley.” Their growth rates have surprised even itinerant Tom:

In Doha, since I was last there, a skyline that looks like a mini-Manhattan has sprouted from the desert. Whatever construction cranes are not in China must be in Doha today. This once sleepy harbor now has a profile of skyscrapers, thanks to a huge injection of oil and gas revenues. Dalian, with six million people, already had a mini-Manhattan when I was last here. It seems to have grown two more since — including a gleaming new convention complex built on a man-made peninsula.

What does this have to do with climate change? Friedman explains:

(more…)