Sen. Obama thinks the bill can be improved, with tougher targets and more money back to taxpayers:
CHICAGO , IL — Today, Sen. Barack Obama released the following statement on the Climate Change Bill:
“As this week’s debate on climate change has unfolded, the American people and those watching us around the world had every reason to hope that we would act. Every credible scientist and expert believes action is necessary. This is critical and long overdue legislation that represents a good first step in addressing one of the most serious problems facing our generation.
Like many of my Senate colleagues, I believe the legislation could have been made even better. Had there been a substantive Senate debate about some of the concerns with this bill, I believe the outcome could have generated broad support. It certainly would have received my support.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate has chosen to block progress, rather than work in a good faith manner to address this challenge. This is a failure of our politics and a failure of leadership — a President who for years denied the problem, and a Republican nominee, John McCain, who claims leadership on the issue but opposes this bipartisan bill.
We can’t afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, and the periods of drought. By 2050, famine could force more than 250 million from their homes. And if we do nothing, sea levels will rise high enough to swallow large portions of every coastal city and town.
This bipartisan legislation establishes an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. It helps states, cities, and towns invest in technologies to reduce energy bills for homeowners, increase energy efficiency, construct green buildings, and expand public transit. It invests in green technology to help our automakers to retool and our fossil-fuel industries to become clean. The bill provides real financial relief to working families. Importantly, the bill restores our great nation’s international leadership role, while including provisions to ensure that all major emitting nations also take serious action to solve this global problem.
Let me clear, this bill is not perfect. Emissions reductions must reflect the scientific consensus, which are reductions of at least 80 percent 2050. We must ensure that more middle-class families reap more of the financial benefits created by this bill. And we must direct greater resources to the regions of the country that will bear the brunt of this critical transition to a clean energy economy.
I believe that the American people are ready to lead the world on this issue. The time for distractions, divisions, and excuses is over. The time for new coalitions, informed and civil debate, and a sense of shared purpose is long overdue. As president, I am committed to ensuring that our children and our children’s children can point to this generation as the time when American found its way again.”
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Good introduction, I am curious as to how he will have this bill address middle-class families. On this senate debate overall, it will take a long time to go through your extensive blog entires this week and accompanying links. There are so many entries it makes it hard to get back passed them to previous stories. For future reference when this bill comes back up next year, is there a way to bundle this group of postings into a specific blog folder instead of each one standing alone?
He should have mentioned sea ice. Is anyone willing to bet that we will not set a new sea ice minimum this year. NSIDC has created an interesting graph that illustrates given summer weather conditions of the last 25 years and current 2008 ice extent and thickness the likely end ice extent. You can note only one year 1996 summer weather would allow the record not to fall. http://www.nsidc.org/ images/ arcticseaicenews/ 200805_Figure4.png
As I have said elsewhere (my post today on http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 11/ 17/ must-read-ipcc-synthesis-report-debate-over-delay-fatal-action-not-costly/ ), whatever Obama may say, US global leadership is no longer a practical way forward. IMHO there will be no progress re CO2 emissions until China and India sign up to it. That may never happen if, as is probable, they continue to insist that their living standards are first be aligned with the West’s. India, for example, may be becoming an economic power house but it still has over 200 million slum dwellers and over 300 million people who are illiterate. And see: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 04/ 09/ money-for-indias-ultra-mega-coal-plants-approved/ ?ex=1208404800&en=fc1b35982cca425a&ei=5070&emc=eta1
U.S. leadership remains the only way forward. The U.S. is the richest country with the most cumulative emissions by far. China and India will never act until 1) we act and 2) come to the table with all the other industrialized countries to make a grand bargain with them.
China has a lot of poor people but it is really in a different category than most developing countries. It has a phenomenal amount of wealth generated from its export-based economy, and it is in the process of becoming the number one manufacturer of PV panels and wind turbines.
the technology is now available to replace coal and either the United States provides the leadership or nothing will happen.
The US must lead by bringing down its huge per capita GHG emissions while countries such as China and India are minimizing increases in their much smaller per capita GHG emissions.
Joe said: “China and India will never act until 1) we act and 2) come to the table with all the other industrialized countries to make a grand bargain with them.”
I disagree. China, at least, is not at all unaware of either the environmental or health effects of continued dependence on unrestricted burning of coal. Eventually they will act on their own to address both the growing problem of smog and particulates, and the threat of diminishing fresh water flow, reduced food production, and exposing large areas of their national territory to sea level rise.
That said, I certainly agree that it is in our own and their interest to encourage and assist them to take action sooner than they may otherwise.
one way we could lead is by buying less stuff from chinese factories and indian teleservice companies that we financed. oh wait. that would be bad for their economies, which is our business because we’re supposed to care about somebody’s economy.
did you know a major cash influx in india is now international bill collection? this after international mortgage marketing. what a mysterious development.
yes, the source of this problem is truly those folks over there.
Great statement – I’d say since winning the nomination, just four days ago, Obama has hit an amazing number of right notes…it is a “hopeful” beginning.
Mauri, William Connolley is still taking bets, although probably not for much longer.
Not a good first step, but a step backwards. For get the desire to do something and look at the reality of the proposal. It stunk.
We have the science, now we need the leadership! A good first step and I couldn’t agree more when Obama says, “Emissions reductions must reflect the scientific consensus, which are reductions of at least 80 percent 2050.” I would add that based on the most recent findings of the world’s foremost climatologist, Dr. James Hansen, it is imperative that we reduce carbon levels to no higher than 350 parts per million in the atmosphere. We are currently at 387ppm, and we have less than a decade to make major advances in bringing that number down.
With leadership and moving beyond the partisan bickering, we can do this! ………… We MUST do this!
A good first step, but we’ll need some revisions and more specifics. And some real fighting.
I’m referring of course to Obama’s statement. Somewhat heartening, but we have a long way to go. If the lack of understanding about the pretty darn simple facts of life about oil and gasoline is any indication, it will take all of BHO’s ballyhooed rhetorical skills to get across the main points about climate and the needed actions.
For your average US citizen, climate is one of those things that somebody oughtta do sumthin about, one of these days, but it’s down the list somewhere near Lyme disease, dangerous toys from China, and the World Series drought for the Cubs.
Wish I could vote for Obama in November!
Can a US president be nominated for a Nobel prize?
Anyone who expects that US “global leadership” will change things doesn’t understand that the dynamics of world politics have changed utterly in the last decade. Yes, the US may be heard – but it can no longer exercise leadership. Look at what’s really happening:
In Europe, more than anywhere the advocate for action on climate change, fine words have resulted in no practical action. A recent summit to define targets failed and Britain’s (I am British) recent “greenest budget ever” meant nothing. See for example: http://www.spiegel.de/ international/ germany/ 0,1518,557199,00.html. Why? Well, its not lack of US leadership, it’s simply that voters are not interested. See: http://www.politicshome.com/landing.aspx#909. In a democracy, it’s voters that matter and what matters to them is economic recession not US opinion. As a result, investment in, for example, roads and airports continues and aircraft and shipping are exempt from controls. OK, European politicians are setting targets for 2050 – but all will be out of office and most will be dead by then.
The oil and gas producing nations, whose power, economic success and ambition depend wholly on that production, are not going to change. Can anyone seriously imagine President Obama’s leadership persuading Chavez, Ahmadinajad, Putin or King Abdullah otherwise?
But the biggest factor now is the emergence of the Asian powerhouses, China and India – as well as other growing economies such as Brazil. I mentioned India yesterday (my 9:30 post) but China is a yet more egregious example. China has over 20% of the world’s population, many of them in desperate poverty. As well as its continued commissioning of coal burning power stations, it is spending 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999, with demand expected to treble by 2030. (See, for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ hi/ world/ asia-pacific/ 7347638.stm.) China and India are unashamed that the alleviation of poverty is their overriding and urgent priority – demanding that their emissions be equalised with the west on a per capita basis. No US President could agree: it would mean massive reductions in living standards to achieve nothing much in terms of the climate. What’s the alternative – armed intervention? Er no – I don’t think so.
What matters to the world’s billions of poor people are the basics such as drinking water and food, simple healthcare, freedom from continual violence etc. – all of which require increased and urgent economic growth. What matters to those lucky enough not to live in poverty is freedom from economic decline. A consequence is that, since 1990 (the baseline for Kyoto CO2 reductions), global fossil fuel emissions have grown by over 30% and growth continues apace. Anyone who thinks that “US leadership” will reverse that is living in dreamland.
Rob — now I see why you keep getting this issue wrong. You think fighting global warming “would mean massive reductions in living standards to achieve nothing much in terms of the climate.”
But that is factually untrue, indeed the world’s most August energy body just said so in a new report.
There is only one true preventable threat to living standards around the world — catastrophic climate change (though peak oil is a close second).
No, Joe, you misread my post. What I wrote was that China is “demanding that their emissions be equalised with the west on a per capita basis” (and in the meantime is “continuing to commission coal burning power stations and spending 35 times as much on oil now as in 1999″). That’s got nothing to do with what I may think about “fighting global warming”, it’s what the Chinese are saying. And it’s that combination – i.e. that, before they will consider emission controls seriously, we must reduce our living standards as they (very slowly but with massive CO2 emissions) increase theirs – that would achieve little. And be unacceptable to US voters.
But my main point is simple: the world has changed (read all my comments and references carefully) and US influence is a shadow of what it once was. Despite your and your readers’ hopes, in today’s world, US “leadership” will count for very little.
An addendum to my earlier comments:
The main characteristic of the modern world is its division into two camps: (1) the authoritarian countries such as China, Iran, Russia and the Muslim nations and (2) the democracies such as the US, Europe, Australasia Japan and India. None of the former really cares about climate change and certainly none is even attempting to do anything about it. Of the latter, Europe, Australasia and Japan say they care but, in practice, are doing little: their electorates have other priorities. The US at present is barely on board (although, in truth, it’s doing as much as Europe) but it seems that will change – and India, of course, is busily increasing its CO2 emissions. The US may hope to lead (2) but first it must persuade its own electorate (see Ric Merritt’s comment above), although I doubt if that will make much difference – especially to India. But it hasn’t the slightest hope of leading (1).
A footnote: those worried about pending catastrophe might wish to ponder the near certainty that one day Islamic terrorists will get hold of a nuclear weapon. And use it.
It’s essential that AGW proponents come to terms with these realities.
paulm,
You wrote:
Wish I could vote for Obama in November!
Can a US president be nominated for a Nobel prize?
I say:
Only if he creates a “docudrama” filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods predicting global pestilence and then develops a company that sells placebos to cure people who aren’t sick.
@rob: the indonesian government is more accountable to the public than iran’s or russia’s? that’s a good one, i hadn’t heard it before.
they’ll kill fewer civilians than we have in our hobby war, but it’ll be a worse crime because they meant to. ours is more like the million manslaughter.
hapa: OK, OK, forget “Australasia” – I mean Australia and New Zealand. Re the terrorists killing “fewer civilians”: if you’re right (big “if”), does that mean it’s somehow acceptable and that we should just forget about it?
Joe,
You’re absolutely correct, what we need to solve this global warming thing is leadership! I’m a firm believer in leading by example, aren’t you Joe?
Let’s take a look at the a few “leaders” in this all inclusive, concerted effort to fight “climate change”. We’re all in this together, right?
Barak Obama,
Net worth:
Lives in a 7K Square Foot Mansion with his wife and two kids. Do four people really require that much living space? At what temperature does he keep his mansion?
(Senator Obama and his wife have never explained how on their salaries they could have amassed a $1.65Million lump sum to pay for their Chicago mansion without a mortgage in June 2005).
Travels the country in private jets daily. Chauffer driven gas guzzling limousines and 12 MPG Suburbans to support him and his “posse”.
Hillary Clinton:
Net worth: 34.9 Million
Flits around the country in private jets spewing tons of CO2…….escorted around various cities in chauffeured limousines and gas guzzling SUV’s. Owns TWO mansions, one in Washington D.C, one in New York State.
John Edwards
Net Worth: 29.4 Million Dollars
Owns a 28 THOUSAND square foot home for himself and his family, (maybe more than they need, right?).
Albert Gore
Net Worth: 100 Million
Owns 4 homes, (Two Mansions) for he and his wife.
Travels the world in private jets espousing the need to conserve energy.
This is leadership? Shall we go through the net worth and carbon heavy lifestyles of more of these “Carbon Crusaders”? Shall we discuss the Hollywood elitists telling us to conserve and hang our laundry outside while they live in 40 room mansions and own more automobiles than I could own in a lifetime? How much is Oprah Winfred or Steven Spielberg worth? How big are their carbon footprints? John Travolta owns a fleet of jet airplanes with a runway in his front yard. Streisand? Are you kidding me? How much carbon and just plain trash was generated by Gore’s “climate awareness” festivals?
You’re right……we need leadership instead of blowhard, arrogant, elitists politicians expressing their “concern” for the planet as they step off their private, chartered jets to be driven to their 30 room mansions.
Brute:
We need POLITICAL leadership.
I have NEVER on this blog suggested that an individual’s footprint matters that much. You should go to other blogs for that.
If our government (along with others) puts in place the right measures, then we will hit the necessary targets and everybody’s emissions will drop. If not, we won’t.
I don’t care if there are some rich people who currently generate a lot of emissions (though Gore’s net emissions are now quite low). They will no doubt cut emissions more in the future when that is the law of the land.
Everyone that I mentioned, (with the exception of the Hollywood kooks) ARE politicians and have been for a long time, (except Obama) and have done nothing to reduce their own, or government operated facilities, carbon footprint. Do you know who the largest employer in the United States is? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Think about how many people that is, and that doesn’t include State, County and Local government employees. Why aren’t these people driving high mileage cars and working in “green” buildings?
I work in D.C, I know the amount of energy wasted by these government types. Drive by any Federal building at night in this town, the places are lit up like Christmas trees for no reason. Does Hillary need a staff of 200 people and multiple offices around the country? Does Nancy Pelosi need a 747 to haul her ass back and forth to San Francisco every weekend? She could fly commercial, same with Gore if they wanted to. No one holds these politicians and government workers accountable. Why don’t you write about that? They get rich by taking money out of our wallets. These people are all phonies and liars, Democrats and Republicans. They are paying lip service to your non-existent problem to get your vote and after they get it, they’ll abandon you. They’re using you; can’t you see that?
If they really believe that the earth is in imminent danger from excess carbon, don’t you think that they would adopt some of this “green” nonsense and use it in their personal realms? They don’t because it’s too expensive and unreliable.
I’ve seen the television ads, “we’ve got to act now”! Why don’t THEY act now? Why doesn’t Obama move into a modest home? It’s a load of bovine fertilizer, that’s why
Why does Charlie Rangel need a Cadillac sedan (paid for by the taxpayers)…….wouldn’t a Prius serve him just as well? Bill Clinton taking his cronies corporate jets all over the planet to speak about his Presidential failure and collecting 6 figure fees for lecturing the rest of the world about his lack of morals and judgment? What a load of bunk…… and you’re too stupid to see that you’re being played.
Do a little investigating and you’ll find out how “green” the government operations really are. Take a look at the Senate or House operations and look for energy waste. Write one of your little essays about that.
Brute — the government has made as much effort to green itself as either the President or the Congress will let it.
I ran the federal office that worked with the entire govt to help them cut their energy use and reduce their emissions. Sadly, conservatives in Congress repeatedly cut funding when they could or blocked increases at other times.
The reason the government has not done more is because conservatives don’t believe even in reducing the government’s own inefficiency.
The only action that matters now is government policy to drive down all emissions. yes, The federal government is the single biggest user of energy, but it’s impact isn’t big on its own — especially since much of the energy it uses is by the military and thus hard to restrain, especially when the Republicans are President.
I don’t really think the phrase “little essays” is called for. Nobody forces you to come here and read those essays, you know.
You’re right, the comment was childish. I apologize.
I don’t want to get into a finger pointing session here, but Bill Clinton and Al Gore were in the White House for 8 years, (Republican controlled Congress) and the government did nothing to police its own policies regarding energy. Now we have a Democratic Congress and Republican President and nothing has changed.
Look, I don’t buy the “global warming kills polar bears” thing, but I am an Engineer and my primary responsibilities are efficiency coupled with reliability. I’m as tight as a tick when it comes to squeezing a watt and always have been, especially at my home.
I been to many, many government facilities and the waste is appalling. They don’t audit their own facilities because the money doesn’t affect any bottom line. They are all working under the mindset that the money to operate the facilities, (taxpayer dollars) just “falls out of the sky”. NO ACCOUNTABILITY. Many are Union employees and couldn’t be fired for being inept due to the “deals” made between GSA and the individual politicians and agencies.
The Architect of the Capital and GSA don’t need federal laws to switch the lights out at night or to turn the heat down when no one is there…….The problem is THEY DON”T CARE. It doesn’t impact their paychecks and the government never has to worry about making a profit. There is NO incentive to be frugal or judicious with energy.
Seriously, write something about that……embarrass some of the frauds. Maybe they’ll wake up and look around their own houses, (of Congress).
@ron:
it’s a lot easier to stop malcontents with soft support from starting a nuclear war nobody wants, than it is to stop the dominant political group in the dominant military power from killing hundreds of thousands of people for a lie.
one takes diplomacy and dedicated, sensitive police work, with an ear to the community; the other apparently takes divine intervention.
if you can provide me proof that, outside of the loose confederation known as “pakistan,” there’s any country in the world that would knowingly and willingly provide weapons-grade material to a non-state actor, i will then tell you whether i think the threat of nuclear terrorism should be ignored.
Hapa,
“it’s a lot easier to stop malcontents with soft support from starting a nuclear war nobody wants,than it is to stop the dominant political group in the dominant military power from killing hundreds of thousands of people for a lie.”
You’re right. I think we should haul all of the United Nations Security Council members who were present and voted at the time for sanctioning Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein and his sons were benevolent leaders….they didn’t use poison gas on Kurdish civilians or on Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq war as those thousands of eye witnesses claimed.
I also think that there should be congressional hearings. I want to know why John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller voted to send us to war! Why did Hillary and Harry Reid lie to us? Why did 110 Democrat congressmen vote for……
H.J.RES.114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
By the way, I was in Washington D.C. on September 11th 2001, watching the Pentagon burn. Where were you, burning an American flag?
Rob,
I don’t get what this comment:
“A footnote: those worried about pending catastrophe might wish to ponder the near certainty that one day Islamic terrorists will get hold of a nuclear weapon. And use it.”
has to do with concerns about global warming. Are you suggesting that we not increase use of nuclear power? Or perhaps that it’s not worth doing anything because we’re all gonna get killed by terrorists? Just not making the connection.
–Martin
Joe Romm,
There are already laws on the books regarding energy consumption for federal agencies…..why aren’t they being enforced? Tell congress to enforce their OWN LAWS in their OWN facilities before putting the bite on us for heavens sake. (Don’t know how old this report is). Engineering companies finance these improvements and recoup the initial investment through improved efficiency and energy savings at no cost to the taxpayer. Republicans aren’t blocking this, this is a lack of oversight by Democrat and Republican congressmen.
Taxpayers could save $1 billion annually and see a significant reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (7 million tons of carbon dioxide) if the federal government adhered to the Energy Policy Act and executive orders that require agencies to reduce energy waste through improved energy productivity, reports the Alliance to Save Energy and a task force of 50 energy companies and organizations.
Examining energy use by the federal government, the nation’s largest energy user, the Alliance and the task force spent more than two years researching information for a major new report, Leading By Example: Improving Energy Productivity in Federal Government Facilities.
“How can the federal government expect businesses and others to meet climate change targets when it’s not setting the right example?” questioned Alliance to Save Energy President David M. Nemtzow.
“Reducing the federal government’s massive energy waste offers enormous opportunities to save taxpayers billions of dollars for decades to come and improve the environment,” said Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), senior Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and co-chair of the Alliance. “We’re starting to make progress, but there’s no excuse for this much waste when leading companies in the U.S. energy-efficiency industry are willing to provide the money for improvements at no up-front cost to taxpayers.”
While the federal government claims to have reduced energy use 14.2 percent per gross square foot between 1985-95, the Alliance’s analysis indicates that energy use actually went up 2.7 percent per gross square foot when all government buildings and energy use are counted. Unlike federal government calculations, Leading By Example includes energy-intensive buildings and accounts for energy consumed in the generation and distribution of power in federal facilities.
The federal government, which consumes about 32 percent more energy per square foot than the nation’s building stock at large, spends $4.2 billion per year to power and fuel half a million buildings and facilities. With an investment of $4.7 billion in energy-saving products over the next eight years, taxpayers would save $1 billion annually for decades to come.
“Federal agencies have clearly made some progress, but they have only started to tap the opportunities,” said Jared O. Blum, president and chief executive officer of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association and co-chair of the Alliance’s Federal Energy Productivity Task Force.
“The fundamental problem is Cabinet secretaries aren’t doing their job,” said Alliance Vice President Mark Hopkins. “I think the President is as frustrated as we are. That’s why he ordered them to prepare strategic plans in July. They were to be done by now. Where are they?”
“If major oil companies can commit to deeper and faster reductions of greenhouse gas emissions than called for by the Kyoto agreement, then the federal government should certainly be able to at least match them,” Nemtzow said. “The U.S. government must lead by example.”
Brute,
what on earth does where you were on 9/11 have to do with ones right to an opinion on our war on Iraq? Not only did Iraq have no connection to the events on 9/11 (or maybe that’s what Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are lying about???) but you might find some people who were by ground zero (myself included) and weren’t actually busy burning an American flag agree that the war in Iraq was a disgraceful debacle justified with deception on the part of the administration.
Of course, I’m just a no-car-owning, public-transportation-taking progressive environmentalist who works for a financial company that has been known to finance fossil fuel development. I guess by your standards, I (and everyone else in the world) am a hypocrite with no right to an opinion.
No-one’s pure, and if
This report is newer, (I think).
Testimony: Reducing Government Energy Waste
Testimony of Kateri Callahan, President
Alliance to Save Energy
Senate Environment and Public Work Committee,
March 28, 2007
Introduction
The Alliance to Save Energy is a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 120 business, government, environmental and consumer leaders. The Alliance’s mission is to promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy security. The Alliance, founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor as Chairman; Duke Energy CEO James E. Rogers as Co-Chairman; and Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, and Byron Dorgan along with Representatives Ralph Hall, Edward J. Markey, and Zach Wamp as its Vice-Chairs. Attached to this testimony are lists of the Alliance’s Board of Directors and its Associate members.
The Alliance has promoted effective federal energy management for many years. Our Federal Energy Productivity (FEP) Task Force will soon be joined by a new Board committee dedicated to fostering dramatic energy savings throughout the federal government. Thus the Alliance is pleased to testify at a hearing on energy use in government buildings.
Federal Energy Use and Waste
The United States federal government is the single largest consumer, and the single largest waster, of energy in the world. In 2005 the federal government overall used 1.6 quadrillion Btu of “primary” energy (including the fuel used to make the electricity it consumed), or 1.6 percent of total energy use in the United States. Taxpayers in this country paid $14.5 billion for that energy.
Almost half of that energy, and more than half of the cost, was for vehicles and equipment, primarily for military planes, ships, and land vehicles. The rest, 0.9 quadrillion Btu at a cost of $5.6 billion, was for heating, cooling, and powering more than 500,000 federal buildings around the country. Roughly 5 percent of the building energy use is at General Services Administration buildings, of particular interest to this committee.
Repeated efforts over the last two decades have resulted in dramatic savings, but large cost-effective savings remain available. Overall federal primary energy use decreased by 13 percent from 1985 to 2005, and the federal energy bill decreased by 25 percent in real terms, an accomplishment made even more impressive and important given the 27 percent jump in fuel prices in the U.S. in 2005. Federal “standard” buildings reduced their primary energy intensity (Btu per square foot of building space) by about 13 percent, while “site” energy (measured at the point of use, excluding electricity system losses) declined by 30 percent (“Standard” buildings are those not exempted due to industrial uses or national security needs). Congress and the president have set even more aggressive targets for future savings that could yield well over $1 billion in energy cost savings each year from buildings alone.
It is important to place this savings potential in context. The federal government is the largest energy consumer, and it could play a unique role as a market transformer through the early adoption of new efficient technologies and practices. Unfortunately, addressing federal energy use is but one of many congressional actions that are necessary to solve the many critical energy issues facing our country. The federal government accounts for just two percent of U.S. oil use and a similar portion of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a small percentage of the overall contribution of the U.S. to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, but is significant when you consider that the U.S. accounts for one quarter of the total energy used and one quarter of the total loadings of CO2 emitted by the world. A number of federal policies and funding decisions, such as appliance efficiency standards, tax incentives, and energy-efficiency research and development must be undertaken – in addition to ending federal energy waste – if we are to ensure Americans a sustainable energy future.
Notwithstanding the need to do more, the federal government’s own potential is significant, the potential taxpayer savings are worth pursuing, and it is valuable to establish the government as a successful role model for state and local governments as well as the private sector. There is extraordinary interest in Congress right now in addressing federal energy use, from greening the Capitol buildings to reducing the need for fuel supply convoys in Iraq. I will talk first about implementing, overseeing, and funding the policies that are already in place, and then about new initiatives to make the government even more efficient.
Meeting Current Federal Requirements and Targets
There already are a number of targets, standards, and requirements intended to reduce energy use by federal agencies. Together they already set a reasonably ambitious agenda for reducing energy use, at least in standard federal buildings, but achieving that agenda remains problematic. Among the more important of these are:
• Agencies are required to install in federal buildings all energy and water conservation measures with payback periods of less than ten years by 2005 (Energy Policy Act of 1992, Sec. 152). This has not been fully accomplished.
• All new federal buildings must be designed to achieve energy use at least 30 percent below the national model building energy codes (EPAct 2005, Sec. 109), if such improvements are cost-effective. The Department of Energy (DOE) just issued interim final rules in December 2006.
Agencies must purchase efficient Energy Star or FEMP-designated products unless not available or not cost-effective (EPAct 2005, Sec. 104). DOE has not yet issued final regulations to implement this provision.
• All federal buildings should be metered for energy use by 2012, using advanced meters that record electricity use by time when practicable (EPAct 2005, Sec. 103). DOE issued guidelines in 2006, but limited the metering requirements to electricity use, excluding natural gas, steam, and hot or chilled water. Most agencies have prepared implementation plans.
• Each agency is to reduce the energy use intensity of its buildings by 3 percent per annum, or 30 percent by 2015 (Executive Order 13423). Agencies mostly met earlier targets culminating in a 30 percent reduction between 1985 and 2005; howver, total energy use reductions have been smaller as energy-intensive facilities are excluded from these targets and as the savings targets are interpreted as applying to site energy and thus exclude losses from the growing use of electricity.
• Each agency is to reduce the water use intensity of its buildings by 2 percent per year or 16 percent by 2015 (EO 13423). This is the first water efficiency quantitative target for federal buildings.
• Each agency is to reduce the petroleum-based fuel use by its vehicle fleet by 2 percent per year through 2015 (EO 13423).
The most important issue for reducing federal energy use is to implement fully the policies that are already in place, like those listed above, for federal building standards, procurement requirements, savings targets, cost-effectiveness guidelines, and others. Energy use and decision-making are dispersed among many people at dozens of federal agencies. Agency leaders, of course, have many mission responsibilities, financial constraints, legal requirements, stakeholder demands, and impending crises that compete for attention. Energy efficiency must be adopted as a primary goal and embodied in action throughout the government if we are to meet the targets already established.
For example, while procurement of energy-efficient products has been required since a 1991 Executive Order and by law in EPAct 1992, that requirement has never been fully implemented in the Byzantine process of federal procurement. Product specifications in competitive solicitations and negotiations for GSA schedules often do not include the efficiency requirements. GSA product schedules still include inefficient and outdated equipment, including inefficient air conditioners, refrigerators, lighting, and other products.
The requirement in the new Executive Order 13423 that each agency appoint a senior civilian officer to be in charge of implementing the Order may help focus attention on energy efficiency. However, government officials may be held responsible for an energy-efficiency project gone awry, but no one is ever held responsible for wasted energy or for inaction; the amount of project savings may be debated, but no one ever measures the energy not saved by failing to make new buildings “green” or replace old equipment with the best new technologies.
We believe Congress’s first duty and most important role in improving federal energy management is effective and sustained oversight. Through requiring regular reports as called for in the legislation discussed below, questioning agency heads at hearings, sending letters to agencies in committee jurisdictions, and/or initiating Government Accountability Office studies, Congress can focus the attention of key officials at all agencies on energy use, and demand accountability for meeting energy savings and cost-effectiveness targets.
Funding for Federal Energy-Efficiency Measures
Energy-efficiency measures save taxpayers money in lower federal energy bills, but usually require an up-front cost. The government should look at total life-cycle cost, i.e., equipment/product purchase price plus estimated costs of energy use over the life of the product, not just first cost, when making decisions on new buildings, retrofits, equipment and vehicle purchases, weapon design, and more. This life-cycle-cost perspective is used for some large capital and military systems procurements, but not all. And agencies trying to use this approach face hard limits on the availability of appropriated funds to pay the up-front costs for energy efficiency, and many competing priorities.
Billions of dollars of investment will be needed to meet the current energy targets and reap the associated energy savings. However, in recent years annual appropriations for energy efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy projects in existing federal buildings have ranged from only about $100 million to $300 million. Funding for energy efficiency through appropriations must be increased. If we do not provide more funding for energy-efficiency measures, not only will we risk not meeting the energy targets, but also agencies will spend even more money on energy bills. We must invest more to save more.
Increased funding also is needed for DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the primary expert resource and coordinator for energy managers throughout the federal agencies, and the office responsible for rules, guidelines, and reports to implement the many legal mandates. FEMP funding has been cut for years, despite increasing responsibilities, and its technical resource base of expert contractors has been greatly curtailed. More funding and more management attention are needed to restore this vital program.
But if we focus only on increasing appropriations, while we wait we will be letting money escape out the windows (and the poorly insulated walls). That’s why Congress has allowed private, third-party financing so agencies can upgrade buildings with no up-front cost to the government. Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) finance and help implement energy-saving projects through Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs). The contractor is paid out of the resulting stream of energy bill savings. By law, the savings must be at least as great as the contractor payments—if the savings are not realized, the contractor does not get paid. Many electric and gas utilities also offer financing for energy-efficiency projects through Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), as well as offering rebates and technical assistance to federal agencies as part of their demand-side management (DSM) programs. Similar to ESPCs, utility investments under UESCs are repaid from the utility bill savings due to the projects.
ESPCs and UESCs used to provide more than $500 million per year for energy-efficiency investments in federal buildings. But in September 2003 authority to enter into new ESPCs lapsed, and despite being re-authorized by Congress in 2004 and 2005, the use of these innovative and effective financing tools has not recovered to these levels. In fiscal year 2005 ESPCs provided $97 million, and UESCs $76 million.
There are a number of barriers that have prevented ESPCs and UESCs from reaching their full potential. Ultimately, successful use of such instruments now requires a champion –a committed official who is willing to “stick his neck out” – to overcome bureaucratic bottlenecks; lack of support; and the threat of audits and/or other scrutiny. If the projects fall short of goals at all, they are criticized. In contrast, appropriated projects receive comparatively little oversight. And, as I said before, there is no systematic process of oversight for facilities in which the improvements are never made and that are allowed to simply go on wasting energy. In short, government energy managers are neither financially nor professionally rewarded for energy savings, nor is there much risk in failing to seize energy-saving opportunities. Proper oversight of ESPC and UESC contracts is needed, but there must also be recognition of the major costs of inaction, with a focus on maximizing savings rather than on requiring perfection in all activities.
New Federal Energy Savings Initiatives
Clearly, the greatest need right now is oversight and funding of existing federal energy management policies and programs, many of which have been initiated within the last two years and not yet fully implemented. At the same time, new legislation to expand the scope of federal energy management and to make the federal government a true example of leadership in energy efficiency would certainly help to stop energy waste and to set an example that will encourage savings by other levels of government and the private sector. In addition, some clarification of existing policies could be helpful. It is important that any new initiatives not reduce attention and funding for existing activities, but complement these activities. And, of course, in order to be effective, Congress must also carefully oversee implementation of any new bills it may enact.
The Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007 would be an excellent start and would meet the criteria outlined above, i.e., expand the scope of the current policies; establish the federal government as a successful model for others to emulate, and complement rather than compete with existing funding and activities. The Alliance to Save Energy Board, Associates and staff applaud Senators Boxer and Inhofe for their bipartisan work to design a meaningful bill that could expedite and expand energy savings by the federal and local governments.
The bill proposes to “front-load” energy savings (i.e., require most of the savings to occur in the first five years) from the eight-year targets established in the new executive order for the small but important segment of federal buildings managed by the GSA. It facilitates the attainment of the proposed goals by identifying approaches to achieving the necessary savings, including a manager for each facility, an overall plan, and lighting standards and replacement program. The bill also would authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to implement a $120 million grants program to assist local governments in achieving energy savings in their own buildings.
The Alliance believes that additional measures would greatly enhance the potential of wringing out energy waste by the government. For example, almost all of the current federal requirements and programs address energy use in federally owned buildings, but most exclude “energy intensive” facilities that house industrial processes, as well as other “exempt” facilities, often for national security reasons. This focus neglects more than half of all energy use by the federal government, mostly in transportation and mobile equipment. Also overlooked is the energy use and potential savings by federal contractors, many of whom perform “outsourced” functions that would alternatively be the direct responsibility of a federal agency. Among the potential ways (most of which likely are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee) for capturing these savings are:
• Establishment of a government-wide energy savings target or a savings target for all vehicles and equipment (“mobility”) energy. In addition to the target for federal buildings, the latest Executive Order 13423 includes energy savings targets for fleet vehicles. However, these fleets are responsible for less than ten percent of federal oil consumption. In addition, the executive order rescinded the only target that directly addressed greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for the federal sector: Executive Order 13123 previously called for a 30 percent GHG reduction from federal buildings, from 1990 to 2010. If Congress chooses to reinstate a similar performance target for federal agencies, it should apply to energy-related GHG emissions from all federal energy use, including buildings, vehicles, and equipment.
• Imposition of energy saving requirements for buildings leased by the federal government. The current building standards and energy-saving targets apply only to government-owned buildings. However, the government also leases a large number of buildings, many of which are built specifically for use by federal agencies based on long-term lease commitments. One way or another, the government pays for the energy used in these buildings, and it should demand that they be energy-efficient. Other buildings, such as privatized military housing, also are built for the government and often with government assistance, and should be required to be energy-efficient as well.
• Imposition of smart growth or locational efficiency requirements. In addition to the impact of building design on the actual energy use, the location of federal buildings can have a dramatic impact on the energy use of employees in commuting and other driving. The impact is often multiplied as federal buildings often attract additional residential and commercial development and infrastructure. Moving federal facilities to far suburbs or other areas outside of cities encourages sprawl, more driving, and greater oil use. A required transportation energy impact assessment could influence decisions on where to locate major new or expanded federal facilities.
• Directive to encourage federal contractors to improve their own energy efficiency. Some industry leaders, including Wal-Mart, are not only reducing their own energy use dramatically but also requiring their suppliers to improve efficiency, both to lower costs and reduce environmental impacts. Federal agencies could encourage and assist their large contractor base to reduce their own energy use thorough procurement preferences or requirements.
• Application of standards and savings targets to Congress. Congress could take an important symbolic step by applying all the agency energy savings targets and requirements to its own buildings, vehicle use, and procurement – making the Capitol complex a model for energy efficiency.
Successful federal energy management also can further vital federal goals by influencing others to use energy wisely. The federal government could:
• Challenge state and local governments and major businesses to match the federal commitment to energy efficiency. Many federal programs, including ESPCs and procurement requirements, have been models for other levels of government. The federal government should challenge other major energy users – both public and private – to commit to aggressive energy savings goals and policies at least comparable to the federal ones.
• Support state and utility energy-efficiency and demand-management programs. Many federal facilities have taken advantage of state and utility energy-efficiency programs, and the federal market has been essential to building the important infrastructure of energy service companies and other energy service providers. Utility DSM programs have been among the most effective public tools to reduce energy use, and all agencies and agents representing the federal government should strongly support cost-effective utility DSM programs and associated surcharges to pay for them.
Conclusion
While federal energy management is only a piece of the solution to the economic, environmental, and security challenges from energy use in this country, the federal government is the single largest energy user and could be the most influential model in the nation and for that matter, in the world, for using advanced energy-efficient technologies and practices. Congress has an important role to play. First, sustained congressional oversight is needed to focus agencies’ top management attention on maximizing energy savings. Second, sufficient funding is needed to pay for the necessary initial costs to achieve long-term savings, along with continued support for alternative financing mechanisms. Third, new legislation could expand the scope and savings of federal energy management activities. The Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007 is an important first step. These actions will save taxpayer dollars and help save the planet at the same time.
Ummm… clicked on submit comment by mistake! If editorial wants to append this to my last post, I’d appreciate it.
… only the entirely consistent of motive and action are permitted credibility, well, we’d have darned few people speaking out. If you need to consume energy to get elected and try to accomplish change, then that’s what you do. I doubt one could win an election in our current system running as the environmental ascetic you seem to demand. Any excuse to dismiss opinions, huh?
–Martin
actually i had jury duty that day. it was cancelled. we all wandered around in the street, like the rest of the pedestrians, seeing things in the shadows. no flag burning, but i spent a lot of time that day cursing john ashcroft for shifting from terrorism to kiddie porn, in the wake of the cole bombing.
For the extremely wordy “Brute”, and others of like opinion: I get awfully tired of whining about government waste. It is more accurately named waste by large organizations, or waste because of human nature. I’ve spent decades around organizations both private and public. They all waste appallingly. Maybe I should say we all waste appallingly.
Mr. Merritt,
Ah, but the difference is that I can waste, (or conserve) what is mine, what I’ve earned. A free society permits that…..however wise or foolish the decision may be.
Government has no compunction confiscating and wasting what belongs to you, (and me). It’s about trust and stewardship……fiduciary responsibility. Get the difference?
-the “Wordy” Brute
My comment about Islamic terrorists and a nuclear weapon (something that concerns the West’s security services) was merely intended to show that there are other potential catastrophes out there as well as the run away warming that worries so many contributors to Joe’s blog. Other examples of unlikely but possible catastrophes include a worldwide flu pandemic, all-out nuclear war, runaway biotechnology, an asteroid collision and a new ice age. Preparing comprehensively for all is impossible as resources are limited. My point is that political leaders have to determine priorities. In my view, global warming ranks no higher than the others and that the main focus should be on current ills such as disease and poverty in the non-developing world.
Many here will disagree. And that’s fair enough. But my main point is that the world has changed utterly (see my comments and references above) and US influence is a shadow of what it once was. Unfortunately perhaps, in today’s world US “leadership” will count for little.
of course a non-state nuclear attack concerns people. it’s a risk, and an unpredictable one. but it has relatively small costs of comfortable prevention. same with a flu pandemic. same with a nuclear war.
biotech is tougher. an asteroid is incredibly unlikely. a new ice age, from my understanding, was thought to be thousands of years away, before the “anthropocene” took us off the regular calendar.
how much time and money would you like to devote to the global poor? i’ll support all of it. i’m a believer in the MDGs. so let’s do that. and then we can sit together and watch all our work go to waste as the planet becomes increasingly inhospitable, ruining their lives and our lives, too.
bjorn lomborg doesn’t know what he’s talking about. bit of a fame whore.
now, as far as leadership, we produce 25% of the pollution and another 25% is under our economic umbrella. if we change our rules, it affects half the world’s greenhouse gas pollution. we, who are only 4% of the population, have TEN TIMES the impact in the choices we make. maybe other people don’t have to listen to us, but if we don’t do anything, the problem doesn’t get solved.
you didn’t mention fresh water supply, ocean health, soil health, or oil supply constraint on your list of risks. those are all also risks people take seriously and though they pay for themselves in restored productivity, they are all more complicated and more expensive to mitigate than mass-murderous malcontents.
i joke about them. i think they are a joke. to take them too seriously is to fail to understand how isolated they are in their communities and how much their communities want them to go away, because they are murderers. to fail to understand their isolation is to risk engaging in collective punishment, turning allies into enemies. well, to have risked.
obviously i’m not talking about israel-palestine. that’s its own special case.
anyway “if we don’t do anything” was the wrong phrase. it belongs to 15 years ago, when we had choices about the speed of action. now we — the world’s most optimistic country, people used to think — have to do more than we think is possible or practical or even fair. tough cookies! it’s a good world, we should show it some love.
Well, hapa, you seem to be saying that the US should be an exemplar rather than a world leader. There’s much truth in that: the US voice in the world will count for little if it continues to emit more CO2 person than anyone else. Your (or more precisely an incoming President’s) problem is that a major reduction to anything close to a world average would be a massive and hugely unpopular challenge, made vastly more difficult by the overriding need to deal with a growing recession. Frankly, I don’t see any serious prospect of it’s being achieved. Even if it is, it will take an inordinately long time. And, in the meantime, other economies will continue to emit ever-increasing amounts of GHG – in particular, China and India, which, as I said before, are unashamed that economic growth and the alleviation of poverty are their overriding, and urgent priorities. To achieve them, they are wholly committed to expanding their coal and oil burning power facilities.
That’s the real problem for AGW proponents, many of whom seem to be in denial about it. There’s little, if anything, the US can do to change it.
Hapa writes:
“I joke about them. i think they are a joke. to take them too seriously is to fail to understand how isolated they are in their communities and how much their communities want them to go away, because they are murderers.”
Very brave of you to make a statement such as this from the comfort of your home. Have a good hearty laugh. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, London, Madrid, Pakistan, Israel, Bali, the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, Shanksville Pennsylvania, Somalia, Ethiopia and numerous other sites of terrorist strikes may not appreciate your knee slapping humor. These Islamic fanatics have actually KILLED people, in real time, in real life……not in computer simulated models or the fanciful imaginations of eco-zealots and scientists waiting in line with their hat in their hands for the next round of taxpayer funded welfare checks.
A pity that Al Gore and “BJ” Clinton didn’t take them more seriously…….Gore with his Utopian hallucinations and hand wringing prophecies…..Clinton busy chasing interns around, (and under) his desk……..the poster children of leadership!
Further to my post on June 7th (9:30 am), here’s another reference re India: http://www.newspostindia.com/report-59039
Hapa,
Is this funny also?
Poll: A quarter of younger Muslim Americans support suicide bombings in some circumstances
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found in a national survey that nearly 80% of Muslims in the USA say suicide bombings are never justified to “defend Islam,” but a quarter of those under 30 think such attacks are OK in some circumstances.
“It is a hair-raising number,” Radwa Masmoudi, head of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, tells the AP.
The wire service, which describes the poll as one of the most exhaustive examinations of Muslim opinion in the United States, says: the data revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.
Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.
A quarter of the respondents didn’t express an opinion when asked whether they held a favorable or unfavorable view of al-Qaeda. (About 5% say they have a favorable view of the terrorist group.)
Brute,
There are a lot of ways to look at things and I think you need a little balance in how you look at things.
You described an opinion poll of some people who are Muslim who are okay or would give support to terrorists and the point you were making is that bad. but there are also polls done on Americans and their views. A poll I saw said that a higher percentage of Americans think that some Muslim countries ’should be bombed to the stone age’ than the percentage of Muslims who support terrorism.
There is also a comment on where was President Clinton during the 1990’s and terrorism. Where was the Republican Congress during that time? There were all kinds of hearings on things that Congress should have no business in, but none on whether we were doing enough about terrorism. That’s what Congress is supposed to do, have hearings on it so that people can figure out a plan of action, but the Republican Congress was to busy following politics to care about our countries safety. The Republican Congress agreed with President Clintons approach or they should have done the hearings so an approach could have been made to do more.
This really isn’t the place for these discussions, but some of those remarks should be commented on. I won’t reply more.
And another thing, the Clinton Administration was the worst. As much as he tries to reshape his leagacy, it will always be a stained blue dress.
Hey Joe!
I thought that global temperatures were supposed to rise with the increased levels of CO2? What gives?
UAH Satellite data: Globally, 2008 significantly cooler than last year
One of the great things about our current state of technology is the nearly instant reporting we can get from remote sensing platforms. Thanks to Dr. Roy Spencer ….
[JR: Brute -- Data from Spencer? You must be kidding. See "Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?"
BTW, your willfully ignoring my posts and the basic science is getting tiresome. Nobody ever said that CO2 was the only source of climate change, just that it is now the dominant one and becoming more dominant over time. Year over year, there will be ups and downs. Duh!]
Joe,
Why did it snow in California yesterday? Why is it so cold over such large areas of the planet in the middle of June? I thought my car exhaust was supposed to be making the climate warmer?Whay was there a blizzard in Washington State yesterday?
Anecdotal Climate & Weather Roundup
[JR: Brute -- We're having a record heat wave on the east coast. It's called weather. Deal with it.]
Joe,
Why did it snow in California yesterday? Why is it so cold over such large areas of the planet in the middle of June? I thought my car exhaust was supposed to be making the climate warmer?
Anecdotal Climate & Weather Roundup
10 06 2008
Seattle has coldest first week of June since 1891
Seattle just experienced the coldest first week of June, according to climate records dating to 1891, said Cliff Mass, University of Washington metrologist. Both 1999 and 2008 share the record, with 1917 falling in second place, he said. “Just wait until tomorrow,” he said, when temperatures are going to be even colder.
Story here:
Missoula water park closing due to cold weather ‘to protect children from hypothermia’
Missoula water park closing for week due to cold weather
Associated Press – June 9, 2008 8:24 PM ET MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) – The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has decided to close the Splash Montana Waterpark this week, because cold weather is forecast.
Story here:
Lobsterman: ““Global warming is having the opposite effect for us”
Costs up, prices down
Water temperature played a big part in the last minute scramble that closed the season with temperatures falling so low the lobsters were not crawling.
In order for the lobsters to crawl into a trap the water has to be at least over the 40-degree mark and Crouse said the spring season has hardly any times when the conditions are right.
“Our spring is just not viable,” he said. “Global warming is having the opposite effect for us and we are seeing the temperatures of the water stay lower for longer.”
Story here:
Aspen to reopen this June for Skiing
Story here:
Hey Joe,
Why do you keep deleting my posts? Too much evidence that the IPCC computer simulations are wrong?
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
-Joseph Goebbels-Nazi Minister of Propaganda
Freedom of Speech, right Joe?
[JR: Brute — We’re having a record heat wave on the east coast. It’s called weather. Deal with it.]
Ah, record cold is “weather”, record heat is “global warming” and “climate change”………..I get it…………………….
JR: Brute — We’re having a record heat wave on the east coast. It’s called weather. Deal with it.]
Three days of above 90 degree temperatures in June is a record heat wave? Where have you been living?
Blizzards in the West, Heat wave in the East…..Seems as if the “Earth is in Balance” doesn’t it?
The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore’s mythical “consensus.” Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a “stethoscope for the sun.” But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun’s emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth’s climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”
Rather, he says, “I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet.”
Patterson, sharing Tapping’s concern, says: “Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.”
“Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” Patterson says. “If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than ‘global warming’ would have had.”
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming “community” — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by “dramatic changes” in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
“The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100,” according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that “try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.”
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, “there would not be much effect on temperatures.”
But if the sun shuts down, we’ve got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that’s hanging in the balance.
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
[JR: This wasn't even true in January, when one denier website put it out there -- and it definitely ain't true now, as I have blogged over and over again. You are close to being banned.]
the northern west coast cooling is because of la nina. she’s almost done. things will be warming up and drying out soon.
re: fanatics: no, it’s better to laugh at people like that, when you can, as you act to stop them. if you don’t, they get under your skin, draw you into an animal-stupid fight, and *poof* you become the savage beast they said you were.
(this comment has a very high level of self-reflexivity.)
Perhaps we might get back to the subject of this thread. In my view, AGW proponents are in serious denial about their own countrymen and the world beyond their shores. They inhabit a dreamland where, as Obama put it, “the American people are ready to lead the world on this issue”. Not only are they not ready, but the world has got its own agenda and being led by the American people isn’t on it – see my posts above.
it doesn’t matter any more. everybody’s got to get on this bus, this whole sustainability bus trip to somewhere safer. can’t do it without everybody.
ok. nobody’s pro–global warming. the strongly held positions are:
1. anti-AGW
2. anti-knowledge
and i say #2 confidently, knowing that it is not caused by murky water, like how the boundary of empiricism and faith creates problems around evolution. there’s no contradiction between fighting global warming pollution and any faith i know, except a particularly foul political-economic sect that places money before life, and is indeed the world’s number one religion.
every day, millions of us, before we go about our business, even as we go about our business, we take part in the great ritual of dumping our trash on other people. lo, until we be hip-deep in slurry, may we love thee, lord. amen.
No, hapa, you truly don’t understand. There are billions of desperately poor and hopelessly disadvantage people in this world – and, for many of them, their Governments have decided to put the alleviation of that poverty and disadvantage first. That has nothing to do with placing money before life. In their view, it’s precisely the opposite. You may feel that decision is disastrously wrong. You may even be right – although I doubt it. But that’s the decision they’ve made and they’re not getting on your bus. So you’re not going to get everybody – far from it. You’ll just have to learn to live with it and adjust accordingly.
who are you? how do you not know that development experts think global warming is the worst news they’ve ever encountered? that mitigation is priceless — and not a cost poor countries have to bear alone — because the looming worst case scenario is non-recoverable collapse? failed states? starvation? millions, even billions, homeless and roaming?
there are two ways out for “the bottom billion” and the next. one heads right back into deprivation, then screaming. the other is more complicated but yields very good results and hopefully prevents the worst.
any government that doesn’t act now to prevent runaway climate change doesn’t give a flying f*** about people. only about prestige.
Hapa,
Where are you from, the Age of Aquarius? Grow up for crying out loud and stay away from the brown acid.
Have you visited Darfur, Somalia or Haiti to pitch in? Writing a check to ease your conscience won’t suffice…..God I just love you bleeding hearts…….bitch and moan about the plight of the “poor unfortunate souls” as you drive your kids from your suburban homes to soccer practice in your minivans and attend wine and cheese parties with your “enlightened” Liberal pals.
Pathetic.
and more: everything i’ve ever read has said that technological assistance with mitigation and adaptation would be compatible with the country’s own development goals. go fly your “green fascist” flag somewhere somebody isn’t already planning to put a wind turbine.
guilty as charged. the rest was therapeutic, i hope?
Wake up to the real world, hapa – I’m not talking about the bottom billion. The West has a massive obligation to help these people. No, I’m talking about the increasingly powerful economies such as China and India. These are no longer poor countries: their economic development is outstanding. And they’ve got their own “development experts” and have made their own decisions and set their own priorities. Sure, they’re thinking about power and prestige, but they’re also thinking about the alleviation of their peoples’ poverty. They don’t need our help – they’re not interested in US (or any Western) “leadership” or “technological assistance” – they’ve come a long way from such patronising neocolonialism. Whether we like it or not, they are emitting vast and increasing amounts of GHG and will continue to do so.
On top of that, there are the oil and gas producing nations, whose power, economic success and ambition depend wholly on that production. They too are not going to change. As I said before, do you seriously imagine President Obama’s “leadership” will persuade Chavez, Ahmadinajad, Putin or King Abdullah otherwise? War perhaps? I don’t think so.
It’s not a question of what you or I may “know” – it’s what’s happening in the real world. Get used to it.
Robin,
Here you go. It doesn’t seem that the rest of the world is ready to be “lead” down this path…………..
Dirty US Media Secret: ‘Rest of the World’ Rebels Against Climate Taxes
By Tom Blumer | June 10, 2008 – 14:20 ET
The supposedly surprising rejection of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill last week had an element that Old Media in the US hasn’t covered, but is very relevant.
While the press is ever eager to jump on politicians who fly in the face of supposed “world opinion” when it goes against US positions and traditions, it has been virtually silent over how “the rest of the world” has been rejecting the true linchpin of government climate policies: supposedly climate change-related higher taxes and fees. Surely some of the green-leaning Senators who were supposedly on board but voted against cloture were not blind to this.
Consider the following:
• Germany — “German Car Tax Plan to Be Delayed: Government.”
• In Canada, a sympathetic columnist cautions the Liberal Party, which seems to think that the road back into power is through green taxes, about “The Suicidal Allure of a Carbon Tax.”
• Australia — “The Sun Sets on Rudd’s Climate Change Credibility.”
• New Zealand — “Emissions Bill Hanging by Thread”
Each story is about how a government or party is finding that citizens/voters are not at all keen on reducing their living standards in the name of supposed environmental purity.
The biggest media blackout is over the political situation in Great Britain, where Tony Blair’s successor Gordon Brown hangs by a thread, largely because of his radical environmental initiatives.
Brown continues to push his “Green Road Tax” on “environmentally unfriendly cars.” Poorer Britons stand to be hit hardest, while his environmental minister plays the save-the-planet card:
Owners of the most polluting cars in band M will pay £440 (about $870) in tax. And from April 2010, people buying the most polluting cars would pay a one-off “showroom tax” of up to £950 (about $1,900).
(Environmental Minister Joan) Ruddock added: “What we can’t do is lose sight of the environment agenda because this is everybody’s future, the future of the planet.”
She denied the retrospective aspect of the policy was unfair.
“Over a 10 year period…I think the direction we have been going in has been clear to people at the time,” she said.
In other words, according to Ms. Ruddock, “Your crystal balls should have told you these taxes were coming.”
Two weeks ago, a one-day strike by lorry drivers (truckers) over high fuel prices shut down London’s roads in what was called the “capital’s largest-ever fuel protest.”
If most of all of this is news to you, it’s because the US press is studiously ignoring it. New York Times stories about Brown’s situation on May 14 and May 23 have not a word about the Green Road Tax, even though many Labour MPs have been calling it a “ticking time bomb” for several weeks. Wire-service stories have also been few and far between.
There are three lessons here:
• The tax plans environmentalists want invariably end up taking their pound of flesh from the people they supposedly care about the most.
• Once people see through it, they rebel.
• Politicians interested in self-preservation aren’t about to commit political suicide in the name of greenness. Their best hope is that the news media keep details of the costs away from public view until after legislation passes — a tough task indeed in the New Media Age.
i like the “green road tax” name. it really has better zip than “congestion pricing” or the airline and train industries’ antiquated term, “peak fares.”
i think if there’s a domestic airline still functioning this christmas, and i fly to see family, i’ll make a stink at the ticket counter about “green sky taxes” driving up my airfare. hold up the line a little while. that should make everybody happy.
maybe it’s true new labour hit the skids because they didn’t “and-dividend” enough, i dunno. but i think they weren’t giving people enough service for the trouble in a lot of ways.
course — it could have been about — wait, let me think — didn’t that government get involved in some kind of war?
oh, and i found a documentary about the religion we were talking about.
Hapa:
i like the “green road tax” name.
Brute:
Good, you pay it.
Hapa:
i think if there’s a domestic airline still functioning this christmas, and i fly to see family,
Brute:
I thought the world had reached it’s “tipping point”? You are going to add to this “global catastrophe” by an action as thoughtless as flying to see your family at Christmas? How selfish.
brute:
i got nothing.
hapa:
i don’t care. either you’ll change your mind about this or you won’t. i think i know where things are headed. you think you know me and “my kind” and that makes me wrong. oil companies ripping you off, you call me names. banks ripping you off, you come at me, blame me for nothing, just for breathing. i don’t care.
Hapa:
i like the “green road tax” name.
Brute:
Good, you pay it.
Hapa:
i think if there’s a domestic airline still functioning this christmas, and i fly to see family,
Brute:
I thought the world had reached it’s “tipping point”? You are going to add to this “global catastrophe” by an action as thoughtless as flying to see your family at Christmas? How selfish.
My concerrn is that we are going to plunge this country into an energy quagmire of epic proportions…because we are so concererned about the cause of global warming we’re willing to give up what is an abundant and cheap resource without really looking into the possibilities of finding ways to cut or eliminate Co2 emmisions from coal, oil, and gas….I’m not against alternative clean energy….but we need to develope ways to fix what we have now, that it would allow a gradual transition to more cleaner more practicle energy resources instead of just dropping what is our life line of dependable and cheap energy resource and try and tred water for options that are not economical and costly….all these domsday forcasters of what is happening to our world climate because of the use of fossil fuels…it’s not the use of fossil fuels but rather the misuse of our natural resourses…the worlds climate is going to change regardless of what we do…the climate has gone from one extreme to another over the years and will continue to do so until civilization ceases to function….I think common sense dictates we make changes to adapt rather than panic and go from one exreme to another….Time will tell I guess….I’m not going to change of the mind of the die hard eviromentalist….they can probably afford the 30 to 40 thousand dollar car…or the 15 to 50 thousand or more for solar, wind or geothermal set up….how about the average person or someone whos barely getting by, they’re going to have to pay more for the high cost of electricity or fuel….the presidents energy package is not going to make millions of new jobs it’ll probably create hundreds of different jobs and cost the jobs of thousands just for the sake of global warming…..am I willing to pay more for green energy..NO I wouldn’t….but I may have to if those clowns in congress have their way. If your going to cost me my job because of it then you better give me one hell of an incentive $$$$ to go that rout…other wise I’m looking out for #1 and I’ll do whatever it takes to survive….gurantee thousands more will too…………………….