Senate slides backwards on global warming 24 June 05

With all the buzz about the completion of the Senate bill, it will be interesting to see what happens when the House-Senate conference committee meets to start ironing out the differences in their respective bills, which are pretty significant. Bush’s August target is unlikely to be met, and with such great differences between the bills, this attempt at an energy bill may fall on its face like the last two have.

One very key difference is the Senate’s focus, despite the failure to put a hard cap on emissions, on the development of renewables and new technologies to reduce GHG emissions. On the other hand, the House has approved the “same old” tax incentives that promote fossil fuel use, including $2 billion in breaks for oil exploration.

It will surely be surprising if any energy bill that eventually emerges from Congress can reconcile these differences and be effective.

Please check out my weblog: http://stopwarming.blogspot.com - all the news on global warming, energy policy, and other environmental concerns.

Stephen

I thought you’d be happy that the congress is moving towards actually implementing tougher GHG standards and promoting greener production technologies. This should be good news for the green side… Yet again, it’s never enough when Bush is in office!

Summary of Bill passed in Senate<<<

Senate Bill 388 Official Title as Introduced: ‘A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary of Energy to carry out activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity and to provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems, to provide for the establishment of a national greenhouse gas registry, and for other purposes.

Summary 2/15/2005—Introduced. Climate Change Technology Deployment and Infrastructure Credit Act of 2005 – Amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992:

Instructs the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a national strategy to promote greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and practices through research and development programs conducted by National Laboratories, other Federal research facilities, universities, and the private sector.

Directs the Secretary of Energy to establish: (1) an Interagency Coordinating Committee on Climate Change Technology to coordinate Federal climate change activities and programs to promote such strategy; and (2) a permanent Climate Change Technology Program to assist the Committee in the interagency coordination of climate change technology research, development, and demonstration, and deployment to reduce greenhouse gas intensity.

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish the Climate Change Science Program to assist the Committee in the interagency coordination of climate change science research.

Instructs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) conduct an inventory and evaluation of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies to determine suitable commercialization and deployment technologies; (2) use inventory results for guidance in such commercialization; (3) establish a Climate Change Technology Working Group to identify major statutory, regulatory, and economic barriers to such commercialization; and (4) establish within the Department of Energy a Climate Credit Board to implement the greenhouse gas intensity reducing technology deployment program, using energy credit financial support for eligible projects.

Whilst the national administrations in both the US and the UK seem averse to tackling any issue that presents a possible risk to their positions and those of their party donors, big business suffers no such reticense. It is interesting to note how much more vocal the insurance and underwriting industry is becoming about Climate Change issues. These are people at the sharp end, who have to do the statistical math(s) to stay in business. They have comprehensive data gathering and analytical functions that help them pitch poilicies at a profitable level: they know how to assess risk.

Also notice the effect of a failure to respond by some of the big industry players: General Motors’ stock has slid to allegedly junk levels because of a blind insistence on producing more gas-guzzling SUV’s and the like when the smart money is moving towards the likes of Toyota, Honda and Lexus, with smaller leaner Hybrids.

Show the consumer where the informaton can be found and they will drive the market to supply what they want. The best that governments can do is to accellerate the change by effectively subsidising the availability of new technology until some of the up-front R&D costs have been recovered.

So bashing Bush is not an end to be proud of in itself, but attacking anyone that uses obfuscation or discourages people from seeking information by themselves is justified. Bush happens to be a convenient carricature who seems embarassingly unable to admit that there is even a debate to be had. Such silence and obvious evasion of a prominent issue leads to ridicule that could so easily be avoided.

In the meantime there are numerous small local battles that can be won on a daily basis. Home energy efficiency (lead article in the Independent on the cost of appliances being left on standby: http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=649018&host=3&dir=58 )

Supporting local recycling and reuse initiatives and community composting. Community vegetable gardens or allottments and farmers markets do a lot to reduce unecessary ‘food miles’. Combinig an exercise regime with your commuting or travel-to work plan (walk, cycle or take public transport 1 day a week).

As Jimbo pointed out: pump the tyres on your car to the right pressure (they last longer and reduce mpg). Use low energy bulbs and get your heating and insulation checked and maintained. Whilst you are about it, see if a replcement furnace/boiler could actually pay for itself over the next 5 years from savings. Use timer pugs for washers and dryers and other appliances that could run on an off-peak tariff. This is all stuff that saves your money, makes you more aware of your impact on the environment and can improve your health and wellbeing.

Think Global Act Local.

above all, even if you are sceptical, talk to other people about it, get the debate going the truth will out in the end.

kind regards to all

Colin

Because we as a nation have chosen not to follow Amory Lovins’s “soft path” that would increase wealth & equity, the poor (& middle class) just get poorer & less educated, and all they care about is reps who promise (falsely) to lower prices at the gas pumps. American is headed toward economic/environmental disaster, and it’s going to take the whole world with it.

But we need action at all levels, from the tiny local deeds, local environmental group Earth Days to inform people, town government works, state efforts, national regs & info spreading & works to make gov more energy efficient/alt energy, and international. If the U.S. gov would install plenty of wind generators for at least part of its power, that would help drive the costs of wind generators down for utility companies.

It seems businesses secretly wish for uniform regs that put them all on a level playing field, and are predictable, so they can plan ahead, though they may openly rail against such regs. At first much can be done that is quite cost-effective, but later (if no further technology develops) we may need to sacrifice. Especially then we will need regs that are fair to all.

One tiny deed I discovered last week: for cooking, I cut the veggies into very tiny pieces (takes a bit more time), then they cooked very fast, and my husband loved them (even though it was the same dish I had always prepared). Of course, I also use a pressure cooker when feasible & microwave for faster, more energy efficient cooking, and eat plenty of raw produce (which helps fight cancer, heart problems & other diseases).

I have been working on a campagn to save some victorian swiming baths and green space in my community.

At one public meeting we had over 500 people. At this time we mentioned the effect of Urban Heat Islands (thanks to every one on this blog who gave me the basics of this). The big thing for me was that, that was 500 people who hadn’t even considered this effect and they were all the more determind to join other Reading campagns to save our green spaces.

Just talking about it to the folk in your comunity does make a huge difference. The ammount of people who have taken the time to stop all the campagners in the streat proves this.

Cheers Ian.

An article in the telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/27/nyoof27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/27/ixhome.html

More for fun. But the future is bright.

Ian.

Perhaps the only thing more depressing than seeing American politicians miss another chance to take steps against the growing threat of global warming is watching our own political system at work. Faced with massive demand for public transport, which could lead to a significant cut in greenhouse gas emissions, the complex system of committees and vested interests that manage our transport system can only come up with increased fares and massive investment in more roads to encourage more car use. I haven’t seen any statistics, but I have the impression that Britains who can afford to be as wasteful as Americans generally have no hesitation in churning out pollution. The streets of Oxford are full of all-terrain vehicles, as parents try to protect their children by buying ever bigger cars to take them a mile or so to school. And everyone yearns for foreign holidays. It will take a lot of work to change attitudes.

I agree with the suggestion in one of the earlier replies that it is important to get your own life right. And then you can start to influence your friends and family.

In case no one is going down to previous posts, here is my response to Ian re CO2 longevity (see under “British Gov Opts for Carbon Capture” below):

Think of it this way, each individual, esp in industrial nations, causes a certain amount of CO2 to be emitted. That contributes to damage now, in the near future, and most of it up to about 100 years, but because 25% of our personal emissions could be in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years – if damage is still being done by excess CO2 at that time (assuming there is any life around), our personal damage may continue over all those 100,000 years (from present to then).

What that means for me is that what I had thought was a small amount of damage per pound of CO2 I emit (thinking all CO2 lasted only up to 100 years in the atm), may cause much greater damage, and all the more reason to reduce the emissions I am personally responsible for (in my energy, resource, & produce consumption).

In other words, there is more reason to reduce, because of the potentially much greater harm (albeit spread our over 100,000) years. I guess because I don’t have children I feel a bit more connected to all people, even those who might be living (& struggling) 100,000 years from now.

Lynn,

I am in complete agreement with you that we have to stop pumping CO2 into the atm. And have to go to great lengths to reducing the total amount that is in the atm. One of the big problems we face is, as you say. This stuff will hang about for a very long time.

I think it is great that you take such personal responsibility for your actions and I think you are a shining example to all of us because of this.

However, CO2 is not the only green house gas. I quite often worry that not enough attention is given to the others. Forgive me for repeating myself. But, N2O (Nitrous Oxide) is about 300 times more effective at trapping heat in our atm. Admitedly it only represents 1.4% of the green house gass inventory (GHGI). remember that CO2 is 16.6% if you do the maths…...

CH4 methane is about 21 times more effective at traping heat in our atm. And represents about 10% of the (GHGI).

My point is, and I am aware that Methane does not hand about as long as CO2, By thinking about where these gases come from (Cattle and Landfill among others in this case) it is possible for us to make big reductions and help slow down the effects of GW.

CO2 is bad, but he is not alone in contributing to GW. There are other things we could be doing.

Please, do not think that I am not scared about CO2 I am. I am painfully aware that hitting the 400PPM threshold is at present rates about 11 years away. Which in my view is desasterous. Which, and I hate to be a bit fatalistic about this, I feel is enevitable. is why I think that in the very short term we need to look at the entire (GHGI) and look at what we can do with all the gases to make a difference right now.

One example is SF6 which is 23,900 times more effective at trapping heat then CO2.

I hope this makes sence.

Lynn please also note this reply is in no way ment to nock your view. You are one of the pople I respect the most on this board.

Cheers Ian.

Hi Jimbo,

Further to our resent chats I found an article in todays independent.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=650026

My favourite bit is..

“Pinedale, and many other communities in the western United States, is booming because of the energy policies of President George Bush, specifically, his willingness to turn over public land and previously protected open spaces to his friends and allies in the oil and gas business.”

No link to Bush and Exxon. (sorry I do use Exxon as a metaphore for petro chem)

Cheers Ian.

Here’s a less biased source on the same news story.

http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2005/06/23/news/wyoming/a36b3be6380756d687257028007e1cdc.txt

My favorite part is “The three operators are proposing a demonstration program to drill up to 45 new wells - using up to 32 drilling pads per section with directional drilling techniques - in order to reduce impacts to wildlife, habitat and air quality, officials said.

The use of consolidated drilling pads should result in fewer roads, reduced truck and bus traffic to drilling rigs, faster reclamation of drilling sites, increased worker safety and better growth and economic sustainability of communities such as Pinedale and Big Piney, the operators contend.”

The conservationists admit the oil and gas companies are being responsible! It also adds a lot of money into the town’s economy and the BLM has restrcitions on what the companies can do in the areas.

There’s always two sides to a story! I like this one.

cheers : )

Looks like Michael Mann et al have some explaining to do

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm#Related

Jimbo,

As you yourself said there are two sides to every story. I realy like the article you pointed me too.

My least favourite parts included…

Although some year-round drilling has been supported by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Gov. Dave Freudenthal, conservationists generally have opposed such projects on crucial winter range.

and….

“On the one hand, there are certainly some very good things associated with having 32 wells drilled from a single well pad, and that’s certainly very appealing,” he said. “On the other hand, we still continue to have concerns about what the impact of year-round drilling will be on crucial big game winter range … and on air quality.”

and….

“Simply stated, there will be more air pollution if they are drilling intensely for 365 days per year.”

Your article..

Cheers Ian.

I emailed my two env orgs, NRDC & Environmental Defense this email:

Dear Friends at NRDC,

It has come to my attention that a climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann (of the hockey stick fame), is being harassed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. He has done nothing wrong, but some unsigned editorial(s) in the Wall Street Journal (6/21/05 & 6/14/05?) have accused him of scientific wrong-doings, prompting the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to request that he and several others answer various obnoxious questions, almost like an inquisition. See the letters at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm

You can also go to www.realclimate.org for information. Their entry on “Wall Street Journal v. Scientific Consensus” has some information that may help (or you can contact them & Dr. Mann, who is a contributor to the site).

I feel the environmental community needs to be informed about this inquisition, and we need to write letters to the Committee on Energy & Commerce, and to our reps. I would hope that you might inform our members about this. The science and issues are fairly complex-I, for one, trust the scientist and journals like Science, Nature, and Scientific American-but now it seems we all need to learn more, so as to refute the contrarians in government & industry, who are becoming more vicious the more evidence there is of climate change.

I haven’t written my own letter yet, but the gist would be something like this:

“I am quite dismayed that you are harassing the well respected climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, by requesting information from him that is a matter of public record, and/or available to anyone who wishes to have it. Furthermore, I am greatly astonished that you are getting your scientific information from the Wall Street Journal, and from a few select global warming contrarians. I had imagined that at least someone in our government on someone’s staff had enough scientific knowledge and had been keeping up on the climate change literature to know that your request of Dr. Mann was unnecessary and amounts to harassment. It is further unnecessary, because even without Dr. Mann’s studies, many other scientific studies from a variety of perspectives have conclusively proven anthropogenic climate change. His studies are not linchpin evidence of climate change, but only give further support for it.

Might I remind you that your duty is to serve the American people and your constituents. Global warming is a very serious problem that is having adverse consequences even now, and threatens to harm greatly Americans in the future. Scientists require high levels of certainty to claim there is a problem; they need to avoid false positives to protect their reputation, so that people will continue to believe them in the future. Your goal should be to avoid false negatives (claiming global warming is not happening when in fact it is happening), so as to protect Americans and the world. It is unconscionable to take a more conservative, do-nothing stance, requiring higher levels of certainty than scientists, when such a grave potential (and current) problem faces us.

Furthermore, since I am sure you must know America can significantly reduce its CO2 emissions by half, through energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alternative energy, in cost-effective ways that help the economy, there is absolutely no reason at all not to pursue vigorously solutions to global warming (that would also solve many other problems & reduce harm/costs in other areas). I, for one, reduced my energy consumption since 1990 by one-third cost-effectively without lowering our living standard, and even raising it in areas, and now we are on 100% wind-generated electricity, lowering our CO2 even further and saving $1 a month over conventional fossil energy. For cost-effective energy/resource reduction at the national level, please refer to works by Amory Lovins and Rocky Mountain Institute.

I would hope that you focus more on Main Street USA, and how global warming will negatively affect it, than on Wall Street and its very narrow foci and inability to comprehend that the environment is fundamental, the economy contingent. Without adequate sustenance provided by the environment people cannot survive.”

I still have to work on this….

Hope you will alert our members.

Lynn Vincentnathan

Looks like Barton has some explaining to do to: why is he so catastrophically misinformed?

D

Hi Ian

It is always nice to know that we can make a difference. I believe that eliminating heat islands is worth the effort and this should be a part of the solution mix.

If we could convert it to CO2 equivalents, then it could be a part of the carbon trading schemes.

Dan

Ian,

The proper focus is the earth’s heat imbalance as we once talked about before since this focus looks at everything at once so we get a total picture. Heat islands, methane, and other gases are a part of this mix.

Interestingly, the USA has reduced methane emissions below 1990 levels already. Landfill flaring and capture plus methane capture from coal mines were a major part of this reduction.

Best,

Dan

Lynn,

I’m quite certain Mann has retained good counsel and has anticipated such an Inquisition. It is also painfully obvious that Barton is misinformed. A good lawyer ought to be able to turn this around with no problem.

Best,

D

I have posted on this bill before and I will say for everyone not to get overly worked up over it. It is not that great of a bill since it was watered down. It will not allow the USA to increase emissions significantly but it certainly will not lower them either.

The base year for this bill is 2000 and not 1990 like Kyoto. Interestingly, the annual emission rates following the year 2000 have been less than the emissions documented in 2000 according to the EPA greenhouse inventories. Just staying at current levels is not going to help the climate problem enough to matter.

The point is that the inventors of this bill picked a very good year for a base year. It is a current peak emission year for the USA for some reason.

Best regards to all,

Dan

Serious questions have been raised about the Michael Mann’s climate reconstruction of the last thousand years, commonly known as the hockey stick. Accepting this reconstruction as gospel carved on tablets of stone and making public policy accordingly is exceedingly irresponsible.

Rather it is emminently sensible to examine the claims put foward by Michael Mann et al and see if they do in fact pass muster.

Following on from a reference given in this blog, I have just bought the July/August 2005 edition of Resurgence (http://www.resurgence.org/contents/231.htm) for an update on renewables. Thanks for the lead – a very high quality publication.

Godfrey Boyle has edited a number of articles, and written one which compares the progress of Germany and the UK. In short, he is very optimistic about what is going on in Germany.

Some key snippets:

On how well Germany is doing:

“Germany, a larger and wealthier nation than Britain, and more nuclear power stations with poorer fossil and renewable resources, is on course to phase out nuclear energy by 2020, is phasing in renewable energy many times faster than the UK, and has detailed plans to cut its emissions by not just sixty per cent, but eighty per cent, by 2050.” (there follows quite a few comparative statistics)

“Germany’s Kyoto target is for a twenty-one per cent cut in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2012. By 2004, it had reached nineteen per cent.”

On the system integration issues with wind power:

“Germany’s massive wind power expansion has aroused much less controversy than in Britain. But the rapid growth has led to some problems. When wind is a small proportion of generating capacity, its fluctuating output can usually be handled by local grids with little difficulty: existing power stations can be brought online when the wind is not blowing. But system integration studies show that when the proportion of wind capacity starts to exceed ten to twenty per cent, additional control measures and reserve capacity are needed. New power lines may also be required, to convey large amounts of electricity from remote wind farms to areas of high demand.”

On the media:

“But the teething troubles of wind expansion are often exaggerated by an alarmist press” (It then attacks the validity of a recent Guardian article with the headline “Report Doubts Future of Wind Power”.)

About nuclear power:

“Germany, then, is the living refutation of the argument that we need nuclear power to combat climate change: renewables and energy efficiency can deliver the necessary cuts in fossil-fuel emissions.”

Sources:

Boyle refers to a useful German government report (2004) “Ecologically Optimised Extension of Renewable Energy Utilisation in Germany”.

Anyway, well worth a read.

Peter

As an aside, and as it seems to have largely passed un-noticed, I was sad to see that Charles Keeling’s death had been announced-see http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1512558,00.html

Dan,

I am thrilled and amazed that America has reduced its CH4 to pre 1990 levels. Being a Brit we tend to look at our America cousins as being Professor Morriaty to our Sherlock Holmes the evil arch enemy.

I think a lot of that has to do with the way our media conducts itself, However I dont think that the rethoric that comes from Mr Bush help’s that much!

I think that America should make more of the fact that it has made a significant reduction of a bad bay green house gas. I guess reason the Bush administration hasn’t is because they dont want to acknowlage global warming.

However, with new eyes I now look at America as being more like Officer Dibble to Top Cat.

LOL.

Cheers Ian.

Dan,

Your advise was invalubale to us. And you have my thanks for that. One of the things that we would love to be able to do, is actually show what real difference the green space makes. Unfortunatly we are not academics and have no scientific skills what so ever.

Is there a resource on the web that you know of that would enable us to do this. We as a team are very happy to go out and mesure things and count tree’s etc. But we dont know how to do the sum’s. Any ideas will be greatfully recieved.

If we dont win this campaign. A really beutifull out door swiming pool will be lost, a relitlvly large (UK terms) chung of flood plain grass lands will become a new hotel and a lot of tarmac. What is worse, once the developers get this bit it sets a president which means they will develop the other side of the river too. The councill have just submited plans for there new offices to move to that site.

I dont even know if it is possible but it would be brilliant if we could demonstrate what other impacts this development is going to have on our town. Even if it is something like we will be 1/64th of a degree hotter.

Any ideas will be greatfully recieved.

Ian.

the Wall Street Journal & others who have not been keeping up with the science & other issues re Mann’s studies. Well, if they want to waste our tax dollars, I guess that’s our problem. Anyway, this is an excellent chance for Mann to respond in public, so as to inform the nation about the serious problem of GW.

Serious questions have been raised about the appropriateness of the tone and Inquision-like nature of the request.

Your talking point: Accepting this reconstruction as gospel carved on tablets of stone and making public policy accordingly is exceedingly irresponsible. needs work, as it is parrotted agitprop.

The claims put forward by Mann et al are examined all the time. If the septics wish to collect data and do an empirical analysis, they can begin any time.

D

The problem with America is mostly lack of information, some denial, and bad leadership (I know Jimbo disagrees and he is entitled to his opinion). Bush is one of 300 million of us. I am a minority in my awareness and few know much about GW/CC here so our culture has a long way to go.

The propaganda directed at us to justify war is to free Kuwait and free Iraq because our people would not really be for a war on oil for ourselves. That rhetoric would not work on us so our leaders have to resort to rhetoric which uses ideas like freedom or freeing other people which are nationalistic icons intrinsic to our culture. Interestingly, self-sacrifice for the benefit of others is also there. If only one day this could be morphed into the proper focus on GW/CC and energy issues. It may take crises to get us engaged because we respond to crises easier than anything else. It would be useful if the propaganda focused more on our “American Ingenuity” rather than military bravery.

For people like me who are of a future paradigm, it does help to have moral support from friends like you in the UK. I believe in the UK and our past associations defeated an incredible threat to the world and now Germany has become an icon in regards to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Germany owes it to both the UK and the USA for where they are today my friend. Japan does to. I think the UK and the USA share a common bond as a people and I know of no one who has a negative opinion of the UK here. I see that common bond as enabling a united effort in the future.

We had a great president in the past named Abraham Lincoln. He once said that “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time. But you cannot fool all the people all the time.” In other words, the truth will become evident enough at some level and in that I see hope.

Paradigm shifts do happen and Americans will not be excluded from that process. Our transition may be a difficult one because it will be more abrupt since the UK and other nations have been more informed and conditioned to think ahead. We have to have a train wreck to wake us up. This may be a critical time ahead. In that, we need all the friends we can get so we can make proper decisions. I just hope we can deal with the increased anxiety in a positive way leading toward solution.

It really would require an official study conducted by a university or an environmental group in the UK. I think you could ask for help from a NGO if needed.

You can do a Google on urban heat islands again and search for specific scientific studies on other cities because this phenomenon is not a new idea. Urban heat islands have been studied before and one study for one city can be used as a solid reference for any another city. Even if it is a city in the USA, this study can provide a foundation and leverage a comparison to your unique situation. The methodology would be included in the study so you could get an idea about how the sums are done and how to properly analyze the results.

With respect to your own efforts, it may be possible to do a few experiments using the methodology of another study just to confirm that the heat island effect is also occurring in your city. The previous ideas I shared may be a part of that process.

I hope this helps and if I can be of further assistance, please let me know. I wish you success in your efforts.

Dan

I think you hit the American situation on the head. I think highly of the ability of European countries to recognize and accept problems and get on the boat with respect to fixing them, instead of failing to accept the problem on the basis of economic concerns and a commitment to a suffering way of life (overdependence on fossil fuels).

What I am most disappointed in, when it comes to American [in]action, is how most Americans think of our country as a leader in the world – generally the ones to take the first step to fix problems – but in this situation, not only are we not leading, but we aren’t following the lead either. It is one of the several times that I am NOT proud to be an American.