Climate Progress

Tom Friedman is very confused about exactly what happened at Bali and why. So are M.I.T. science journalist fellows. So what are your chances of figuring it out? Well, they are a lot better if you read this excellent Bali debriefing by my friend Holmes Hummel, a Stanford Ph.D. and Congressional Science Fellow.

One interesting point she makes: Some media coverage left the misimpression that the Bush team opposed language that would have committed Annex I (i.e. rich) countries to cutting greenhouse gas emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. But that isn’t correct. The language they vehemently rejected merely said this:

Recognizing that much deeper emissions cuts by developed countries will be required and that Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are considering the indicative range of emission reductions of Annex I Parties as a group of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020…

Yes, that’s right, the Bush team simply “did not want to ‘recognize’ what the Kyoto Parties clearly were considering.” Sad. So what happened?

(more…)

Until last week, this long-beloved annual traditional of Climate Progress seemed to be a lock for one person — Nobel laureate, itinerant educator, and media superstar Al Gore. Sadly, he only makes first runner up this year. Similar to Time magazine, our Person of the Year is awarded to the person or group who “for better or for worse … has done the most to influence the events of the year” in the climate arena.

By single-handedly stopping any international action on climate at Bali, by stopping California from regulating tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions, by forcing Congress to drop almost all non-oil-related provisions to cut GHGs from the energy bill — all in one week! — one man proved his unchallenged high-impact misleadership on the issue of the century: Dick Cheney George Bush.

[Note to future historians: Curiously, Gore seemed to have gotten more actual votes than Bush did for the honor, but the judges awarded it to Bush anyway.]

In a related story, the FHS (Future Historians Society), having previously named Bush the Worst President in American History, awarded him one of their rare Worst Leaders of All Time Awards, alongside such notables as Neville Chamberlain and Nero, for his tireless efforts to destroy the health and well-being of the next 50 generations.

Bush spokesperson, Dana Perino, said the President always believed he deserved as much recognition for his global warming efforts as Al Gore.

I have an article in Salon on the insanity that is America’s ethanol policy. The new energy bill sets this country on a path to finish the assault on the world food supply begun by the (even lamer) 2005 energy bill. As I explain, our ethanol policy does not help fight global warming, but it does threaten food supplies:

In just the past two years, food prices have jumped 75 percent in real terms…. The Economist points out the amazing statistic that “the demands of America’s ethanol program alone account for over half the world’s unmet need for cereals.”

By law (the 2005 energy bill) we are going to increase corn ethanol production at least 50% over the next few years. And the new energy bill will probably require corn ethanol to triple from current levels!! But current levels are already bringing havoc down on the global food market.

The International Herald Tribune reported Monday:

In an “unforeseen and unprecedented” shift, the world food supply is dwindling rapidly and food prices are soaring to historic levels, the top food and agriculture official of the United Nations warned Monday.

The changes created “a very serious risk that fewer people will be able to get food,” particularly in the developing world, said Jacques Diouf, head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

Now here is where everything gets as frighteningly ironic as a Twilight Zone episode. The cause of this catastrophe:

(more…)

The opening line of the Detroit News story says all you need to know:

The House approved a stripped-down energy bill Tuesday and sent it to President George Bush.

Bush signed it today.

The headline is a 35-mpg CAFE standard for cars produced 13 years from now. Big whoop.

The best stuff in the bill is energy efficiency standards, including phasing out the incandescent light bulb.

The reality, however, is no removal of tax breaks for Big Oil; no 15% renewables standard for utilities; no plug-in hybrid incentives. Incentives for wind and solar were stripped out, as well, according to Sen. Boxer. “We’re pretty disappointed,” said Rhone A. Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, which sought an extension of the investment tax credit that expires at the end of next year.

But yes, there is a requirement for five times more ethanol than we now produce. “Clean tech” will have a place to throw some money, even if the environmental benefit is nil, the impact on petroleum usage minor, the impact on food prices unknown. As stated in the Washington Post story today, “For farmers and agribusiness, it is a windfall, providing more support than perhaps even the farm bill.” ‘Nuf said.

Why Nancy Pelosi calls the bill “a moment of change, of real change” is not yet clear. Most elements that would constitute a progressive energy bill seem to have been dropped out.

I can’t help thinking if carmakers are still producing masses of 20-something mpg cars and pickups and SUVs in 2020, something envisioned with a 35mpg average, we’re in big trouble.

Honestly, though, I think this standard will be overtaken by reality. Once a few plug-in hybrids and electric cars hit the market, and they will long before 2020, the relevance of these standards will disappear in the rearview mirror of reality.

– Marc G. - Plugs and Cars blog

Menahem Anderman, PhD, is Mister Battery Consultant. The California Air Resources Board, DOE, and Congress all seem to turn to him to analyze the state of battery technology. His reports always suggest batteries won’t quite cut it for freeway-capable cars.

His report at CARB in 2003 seemed to suggest the electric cars then on the road couldn’t be functioning as well as they were. Drivers of electric cars were stunned at his low opinion of the state of battery technology. He’s always called upon, contracted with, and his report inevitably finds batteries wanting.

At EVS23 he stopped at the Plug In America booth to challenge what he felt was the overly optimistic tone taken by these advocates in their questioning at various sessions. One of the things he specifically said to Sherry Boschert, author of Plug-in Hybrids, to demonstrate the inadequacy of NiMH in electric cars was that the batteries have been replaced in many of Southern California Edison’s fleet of RAV4-EVs. Chelsea Sexton of Plug In America inquired of Ed Kjaer at SCE to find out what the truth is. Here’s what Mr. Kjaer wrote in response to the inquiry:

(more…)

Wind farms could power every home in Britain - The Telegraph (UK). This is really an article about the potential for off-shore wind in the UK, which is tremendous (just as it is in this country).

Climate missing from U.S. election - Gore - Reuters. “Some of the candidates have made speeches which are quite good and proposals that are quite responsible, but overall the issue has not achieved the kind of priority that I think it should have.”

Greener Buildings Easy, But Barriers Remain - Expert - Reuters. “The entire current emission reductions commitment under the Kyoto Protocol can be achieved in the building sector alone. And the costs of achieving these reductions are low, very low. … All our studies have found it will not happen if governments are not active to help overcome the market failure that is very blatant here.” - Sylvie Lemmet, director of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.

You can read the post-Bali thoughts of the Center for American Progress’s own Kit Batten here. Point to ponder:

Since the beginning of the Bali meeting, developing nations such as China, Brazil, and South Africa made it clear that in order to walk down the path toward commitments to reduce emissions in their own countries, they needed to see stringent and binding reduction commitments from developed nations.

The time for the U.S. to act is now!

The tar sands are rightly called one of the world’s greatest environmental crimes, as I’ve written. No company that invests in the Canadian tar sands can legitimately call itself green.

Yet BP, the oil company that lavished millions on advertising its move “Beyond Petroleum,” announced this month it’s putting $3 billion into this dirtiest of dirty fuels!

BP is buying a half-share of the ironically named Sunrise field:

“BP’s move into oil sands is an opportunity to build a strategic, material position and the huge potential of Sunrise is the ideal entry point for BP into Canadian oil sands,” said Tony Hayward, BP’s group chief executive.

The company ultimately plans to produce 200,000 barrels of oil a day from the field.

Shame on you BP!

Just how bad are the tar sands environmentally? As The Independent explains:

(more…)

So the Knight Science Journalism tracker writes an article titled, “Lots of ink and perplexion: Climate happens. But what, exactly, happened at Bali?” The article’s goal is to explain that nobody knows what happened or why — by quoting different explanations from various blogs. He writes (testily):

“The US humiliation angle comes from this little AP piece, brought to our attention by Joe Romm at the rather testy Climate Progress blog. It reports that one small nation’s scolding triggered such a wave of hooting that American delegates promptly pulled in their horns.”

Testy? Testy? Testy? Who’s testy?

Seriously, I suppose it isn’t the worst of epithets, though I confess I’m shooting for snarky, not testy. Also, from a website by journalists, I’d like an explanation of why they think that, rather than just a snide aside. I would argue that for any rational human being who cares about the health and well-being of life on this planet, including ours, being “testy” is about the mildest state of mind one can reasonably have, especially given what Bush has been doing for the past seven years (muzzling climate scientists, blocking international action, and on and on).

Still I must accept the fact that I’ve been dissed by not merely one of the best science journalism tracking websites I have found, but in fact the only one I could find…. I hope that wasn’t too testy.

UPDATE: Earl Killian notes that the entire world got rather testy at Bali, thanks to the Bushies. As one eyewitness put it:

Then occurred one of the most remarkable sounds that has perhaps ever been heard in the annals of international diplomacy–like a collective global groan–descending then to a murmur, then increasing in volume to a full-throated expression of rage and anger and booing and jeering, lasting for a full minute, so that finally the Minister had to call the meeting back to order.

An Agence France Presse report has produced a small flurry of articles this past week, here and here, for example, that has a German company developing Lithium batteries that would be suitable for electric cars. Li-tec is said to be working in cooperation with Bosch and Volkswagen, which has heightened interest.

One can only hope, despite scant evidence, that the fierce grip of internal combustion on the German automakers might loosen. German Greens have bought into hydrogen hype as much as California regulators. BMW is pushing hydrogen gas into the most complicated engine ever and dousing the American airwaves and celebrities with this unavailable $500,000 diversion.

The country has admirably pushed renewable electricity generation, offering subsidies and incentives greater than most any other nation. Their insatiable appetite for solar panels has kept the world price high and supply low. But somehow, the increasingly low-carbon grid has not enticed either automakers to manufacture or policy makers to create incentives for grid connected cars. Do the Germans actually intend to make a green grid, only to throw away 75% of the energy to the losses involved in hydrogen production?

Of late, the French, Irish and Finns are creating feebate structures that could push electric cars. The Norwegians have a host of EV positive initiatives. But the Germans, for all their green reputation, remain laggards. The German government has opposed the strictest CO2 emission proposals in the EU, in order to protect their domestic, comparatively more polluting, auto industry.

Perhaps a German battery will propel interest. An electric VW, say a Plug-in UP!, might bring boomers back to the car that brought them to their first Earth Day rally.

– Marc G.