Climate Progress

[Another post by Ken Levenson.]

Pushed from center stage by the expected record arctic ice and permafrost melt, tropical rain forest destruction has been elbowing its way back through the smoke and into view. Papua New Guinea’s rain forests disappearing faster than thought is one such look:

Previously, the forest loss was estimated at 139,000 hectares per year between 1990 and 2005. But now?

Using satellite images to reveal changes in forest cover between 1972 and 2002…Papua New Guinea (PNG) lost more than 5 million hectares of forest over the past three decades…Worse, deforestation rates may be accelerating, with the pace of forest clearing reaching 362,000 hectares (895,000 acres) per year in 2001. The study warns that at current rates 53 percent of the country’s forests could be lost or seriously degraded by 2021.

Stunning. Adding insult to injury - the good news as reported last Thursday in Malaysia didn’t last long:

(more…)

Joint Hearing Between House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and House Intelligence Community Management (ICM) Subcommittee

This hearing will be WEBCAST Live -please CLICK HERE to watch.

On Wednesday, June 25, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Intelligence Community Management (ICM) Subcommittee, will hold a joint hearing on “National Security Implications of Global Climate Change.” Members will hear and discuss the results of the first-ever U.S. Government analysis of the security threats posed by global warming.

WHAT: Joint Hearing on the National Security Implications of Global Warming

WHERE: 210 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC

WHEN: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 9:30 AM

WITNESSES:

(more…)

In March, British prime minister Tony Blair launched the Breaking the Climate Deadlock initiative to promote a new global agreement on climate change.

Today he has an Op-Ed the in the Washington Post, “Leading On Climate Change: How Action in Congress Can Move the World,” in which he argues

The climate change bill that senators are to begin debating next week is a hugely important signal of intent on behalf of U.S. legislators. Yes, negotiations could still alter the legislation. But the bill’s core proposition is correct: Unless the United States radically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, along with other major emitters, the damage to the climate will be irreversible.

Well, the bill certainly does not put this country on a path to “radically” reduce GHGs (see “Boxer bill update: Probably no U.S. CO2 emissions cut until after 2025“), but I agree with Blair the vote will be cast in mostly symbolic terms. I hope Boxer can at least get a majority vote in the Senate, but not if she has the water down the bill even more. Enough is enough.

It must be said that Blair is years too late in his strong public pleas for U.S. action. Almost exactly a year ago The Guardian had reported: “Tony Blair believes he is close to persuading George Bush to accept an ambitious plan to bring the world’s greatest polluters into international partnership to fight climate change for the first time.” As I wrote at the time, “Yes, and monkees will fly out of my — but let it go” (see “Bush 100, Blair 0. Game over“).

Blair blew it big time as PM on the climate issue. Still, it’s good to see him using his high profile now to press for climate action. Here is the rest of Blair’s argument:

(more…)

I don’t think we do a good job of remembering those who have fallen in service to this country or taking actions now that will reduce the need for such sacrifice in the future.

(more…)

Food riots? Rationing? Governments overthrown?

… a series of poor harvests in the area led to soaring bread prices, provoking food riots…. A worker’s daily bread took 97% of his income…. With bread prices at record levels, hungry mobs attacked the gates … where customs collected taxes on incoming grain convoys. They raided every possible source of arms, ending up with capturing the Bastille prison.

Oh, sorry, that was 1789. No worries, then. Not like that lead to a violent revolution or anything.

Anyway, the Washington Post has a terrific front-page article, “The New Economics of Hunger: A brutal convergence of events has hit an unprepared global market, and grain prices are sky high. The world’s poor suffer most,” which is the first in a series.

No, national and global mandates for biofuels (= bad energy policy) aren’t the only reason for this emerging catastrophe. Obviously, high oil prices (= bad energy policy) play a role. And then there are those poor harvests in places like Australia due to climate change (= bad energy policy). OK — the last one was kind of a stretch, given that the amount of climate change to date was probably all but inevitable. But my point is that if we don’t drastically reverse our self-destructive energy policies soon, things are going to get much worse….

We have mandates for far more biofuels (see “The Fuel on the Hill — The Corn Supremacy), and we are going to see much higher energy prices (see “Peak Oil? Bring it on!“) and much worse global drought and desertification (see The Century of Drought“).

What they heck are people supposed to eat then — Biofuels? Apparently that’s what politicians in this country and Europe think. Heck, in a Friday article, “IEA warns against retreat on biofuels,” the International Energy Agency, based in Paris, ironically enough, has this to stay:

(more…)

Daniel J. Weiss and Robin Pam of Center for American progress has a new article on the health impacts of global warming (here). As they explain, “Some of the most severe health effects linked to global warming include the following:”

• More illness and death resulting from heat waves.
• Worsening air pollution causes more respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
• Vector-borne disease infections will rise.
• Changing food production and security may cause hunger.
• More severe and frequent wildfires will threaten more people.
• Flooding linked to rising sea levels will displace millions.

Already, “WHO now says that 150,000 deaths annually are attributable to the effects of climate change.” And we’ve only warmed about 1.5°F in the past century. We might warm 10°F century!

The time to act is now.

Somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean — April 1: The WSJ reports today:

The U.S. taxpayer forks over a $1 subsidy for every gallon of biodiesel that is blended in the U.S. for export later. The idea was to give a nudge to the U.S. biofuel industry. But it is boomeranging, as the Guardian reports today in the latest installment on biodiesel “splash-and-dash….”

Increasingly, traders ship biodiesel from Asia or Europe to U.S. ports, where it is blended with a “splash” of regular diesel, the paper reports. That qualifies the shipment for U.S. export subsidies. Then it is shipped back to Europe where it is also subsidized. European biofuels organizations talk about between $30 million and $300 million in U.S. subsidies being exported that way to Europe.

The result? Biofuel’s already-tarnished environmental reputation comes under more fire, because round trips across the Atlantic add unnecessary transport emissions to the mix. And Europe’s own biodiesel industry has been shutting plants, despite its own efforts to ramp up production to meet political mandates. Imports are undercutting local producers on price.

The Christian Science Monitor has more details:

If the ship holds roughly 9 million gallons, it takes only about 9,000 gallons of traditional diesel (0.1 percent of the total) to make the entire load eligible for the blenders tax credit.

The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit — a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons, Mr. Baize calculates. The next day the tanker can set sail — dash — for Europe. There, the US importer resells the biodiesel, taking advantage of European fuel-tax credits that, in effect, keep biodiesel prices above US prices.

April Fool’s! Oh, wait, no. It just sounds too absurd to be true. They say, “You can’t make this stuff up” — and it turns out you really can’t.

William Chandler, director of the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, has borrowed my phrase for the title of his new study– “Breaking the Suicide Pact: U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change.” It begins:

Together, China and the United States produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Their actions to curb or expand energy consumption will determine whether efforts to stop global climate change succeed or fail. If these two nations act to curb emissions, the rest of the world can more easily coalesce on a global plan. If either fails to act, the mitigation strategies adopted by the rest of the world will fall far short of averting disaster for large parts of the earth.

These two nations are now joined in what energy analyst Joe Romm has aptly called “a mutual suicide pact.” American leaders point to emissions growth in China and demand that Chinese leaders take responsibility for climate change. Chinese leaders counter that American per capita greenhouse gas emissions are five times theirs and say, “You created this problem, you do something about it.”

Great factoid from the report:

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the United States has produced 1,150 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels, compared to China’s 310 billion tons.

Key Recommendations for U.S.-China Cooperation:

(more…)

The European Environment Agency (EEA) reports:

Total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-27, excluding emission and removals from land-use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), decreased by 0.7 % between 2004 and 2005 and by 7.9 % between 1990 and 2005.

Over the same period, 1990 to 2005, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are up an alarmaing 17%. The EEA report underscores a point I have made repeatedly — the transportation sector remains the toughest nut to crack:

Between 1990 and 2005, greenhouse gas emissions decreased in all sectors except in the transport sector, where they increased significantly.

The EU-15 are down 2% since 1990, whereas Kyoto requires an 8% drop averaged over 2008-2012. This suggests the EU-15 will be buying some tons on the international market (perhaps from their neighbors) if they want to meet their target, which I hope they do — notwithstanding how politically unattractive that must seem to those countries with the richest country in the world refusing to do its part.

If you’d like to see how each country is doing, this figure has all the details (click on it to enlarge, and then click on it again):

(more…)

Nothing is worse for the climate than large scale coal-to-liquids. Not even the tar sands. In September, the Chinese news agency said it would rein in liquid coal plants. A Guardian story yesterday puts the lie to that claim:

A Chinese energy company is poised to open a chemical plant to make liquid fuels for cars and aircraft from coal, a move that has alarmed environmental campaigners who say it will increase carbon emissions and worsen global warming.

The plant, in Inner Mongolia, will use technology developed by Germany during the second world war to convert coal directly into synthetic diesel, dubbed “Nazi fuel”.

Nazi fuel. Has such an inviting ring to it.

The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the first of its type in the world….

A study last year by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said: “Production of liquid fuels from coal is practically the most feasible route to cope with the dilemma in oil supply.”

I agree — if by feasible you mean, “will just about guarantee the end of the planet’s livability by 2100.”

Shame on the schizophrenic Chinese Academy, which in 2005 signed the Academies statement (along with the U.S., Russia, India, Brazil, and major European countries) that called for “substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions” — something that would be quite impossible with widespread use of Nazi fuel liquid coal.

At least two more commercial scale coal-to-liquids plants are under construction in China, although the Chinese government has expressed concern about the possible environmental impact of uncontrolled expansion, and has taken steps to limit the number of smaller facilities.

Oh, why didn’t you say that to begin with: The Chinese government “expressed concern” about environmental impacts and is limiting the number of “smaller” facilities. That almost restores my faith in the wisdom of their leaders. Almost. Significant production of liquid coal would officially make their climate policy as immoral as ours. I fear that the figurative “U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate” I describe in my book is starting to become a literal one.

Capturing the carbon dioxide from liquid coal would reduce the negative consequences, though “would still produce at least 20% more carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel made from oil.” But, in any case, the Chinese plants are not designed for capture, even if they had some large, certified repository to put the carbon dioxide in, which they don’t. So the life cycle emissions will be “almost twice the carbon pollution as using conventional diesel.”

And putting this in dry Inner Mongolia doesn’t strike me as a terrific idea given that “the energy-intensive conversion plants also require massive amounts of cooling water to stop them overheating.”

I thought the Chinese were supposed to be wise and holistic, what with Confucius and Tai Chi and the I Ching and yin & yang and acupuncture, and inventing paper, movable type, the compass, silk, and porcelain, and all that. Turns out they are as dumb as us. Or maybe dumber. I mean, we would never go for something dubbed Nazi fuel … would we?

Related Posts:

• Coal-to-Liquid Is a Dead End
• New Years Resolution #47: Get the real facts out on liquid coal
• Liquid coal means liquid problems
• Memo to Air Force: Stop misleading the public on liquid coal
• Congress should say NO to coal-to-diesel
• The WSJ (and Climate Progress) on Liquid Coal
• Liquid Coal Hearing Report
• China reins in liquid coal
• Liquid Coal Goes Down In Flames In Senate
• The Post Gets Coal-Liquids Story Mostly Right
• Plug-in Hybrids Beat Coal-to-Liquids (Duh!)
• Coal State Newspapers Attack Liquid-Coal Plans
• Some Thoughts on Coal to Diesel