The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) just released a China version of Reinventing Fire. This study and planning outline lays out how the PRC can foster a prosperous, climate-friendly society — reliant solely on already existing, cost-effective technologies and options. (E.g., the economic equation should only get better, over time, with innovation (whether technological, fiscal, policy, social, or otherwise …)
China can reduce its carbon emissions by 42 percent below 2010 levels by 2050 and grow its economy 600 percent while saving a net $3.1 trillion over the investments required
There is much there to consider and absorb … and, hopefully, that the Chinese will implement (as, well, the US could do far worse than following Reinventing Fire‘s prescriptions).
Notable — and worth mentioning — even before future diving into the substance is the ‘positive’ framing. This, simply, is about “China can …” Here is the study summarized in five points;
- China can peak its carbon dioxide emissions by 2025
- China can decouple its economic growth from intense energy use
- China can significantly increase use of non-fossil energy
- China can dramatically reduce its coal consumption
- China’s can transition to low-carbon development with significant economic benefits.+
When it comes to moving to #ActOnClimate while improving its economy, the simple truth is “Yes, China Can …”
[Read more →]
The Democratic Platform has significant discussions and objectives about understanding and acting to deal with climate change. Within it, however, the wordsmiths inappropriately conflated belief structures and science — writing “Democrats believe” when a more appropriate verb might have been “understand” or “conclude” or … Using “believe” implies an article of faith when science and religion are too different domains.
Precise language is difficult to achieve in all venues. Everyone of us mashes together, in some form or another, multiple ‘languages’ (or methods of written/oral communication) from traditional languages (English, French, Russian, you get the drift), to institutional jargon (abbreviations, phrases, etc), to informal/fleeting cultural references (“Where’s Jules?” has a special meaning within part of my social circle and, well, this film describes the Barry in all our lives) to … One element is the confusion that occurs as words shift between domains without clarity as to the implications of the shift, of different contextual implications of using a word or phrase.
This often occurs moving between science and colloquial communication. Perhaps the strongest example is ‘theory/Theory’. In everyday communication, theory is often used as per ‘educated guess or supposition’ that is yet unproven. (What’s your theory about why the team loses so much?) The scientific term for that, of course, is hypothesis. When scientists say “Theory” many non-scientists hear theory … The list, of course, goes on (and on …) but the point is: precision matters.
As so often, XKCD provides path to understanding truth …
And, for political discuss, the mindset (the framing) created
by specific word choice often matters … For example, crossing the other way, people often use wording and phrases that conflate science and religion. “Belief” provides a prime example as discussed by Dr. Vicky Pope:
When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Within the writing of the Democratic Party platform, climate change represented a serious arena of debate and disagreement. While the Democratic Platform — with significant and often strong discussion of climate change — stands in stark contrast to the Republican anti-science platform, it is hard to imagine anyone truly satisfied with the platform’s climate change provisions (and certainly no Climate Hawk believes it adequate). The policy provision strengths and weaknesses of the platform lie outside this discussion but instead it is framing.
The first discussion of climate change (a phrase that appears 22 times in 55 pages) occurs on the second page amid a series of fundamental statements about what “Democrats” know and believe:
Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and security that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
While a case might exist that this opening is about policy proscription and not science, this opening framing suggest this is about ‘beliefs’ rather than conclusions based on evidence and analyses. Framing with “believe” puts the discussion naturally into a ‘he/she says’ structure rather than Real-World Facts and Knowledge vs Anti-Science Delusional Fantasies. Perhaps an alternative might have been
Democrats know that human actions are driving climate change and, based on scientific conclusions, recognize that climate change poses …
Not perfect, by any means, but moves the discussion away from the inappropriate ‘belief system’ narrative.
While most discussion of ‘climate change’ is not ‘belief’, here is another example from later in the platform,
Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers and defeatists in Congress to start listening to science, and support using every tool available to reduce emissions now …
Very simply, this is a situation where “know” would have been appropriate.
Again, there is much worthwhile material on climate change within the Democratic Party platform even as it leaves much to be desired. While there were significant and contentious fights over a series of climate change proposed amendments, calling for “belief” statements to be removed would likely have been met with general acceptance — and would have provided an educational moment both for the platform committee and others about how to speak to (climate) science.
Tags: 2016 Presidential Election · climate change
Joe Romm’s Renewables Are Leaving Natural Gas In The Dust This Year opens
In the first three months of 2016, the U.S. grid added 18 megawatts of new natural gas generating capacity. It added a whopping 1,291 megawatts (MW) of new renewables.
The original title: “U.S. Grid Added 70 TimesMore Renewables ThanNatural Gas In First Quarter“. That title — with a simple mathematical division of 1291 by 18 — led to some complaining and even implications that Romm was attempting to mislead due to capacity factors.
As a quick review, all generation sources have different use and production rates.
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time.
Nuclear power plants, for example, in the developed world are about 90% capacity utilization/capacity factor (. Have a 1 gigawatt (1000 megawatt) reactor and, over time, one can expect the plant to average 900 megawatts of constant electricity delivery to the grid. Dependent on many issues, wind might be considered 25% (roughly world average) to 40%+ (new, reasonably well placed/designed installations). Solar perhaps in the 15-20% range. And … Thus, to achieve the same total electricity production of a 1GW capacity nuclear power plant, one might require 2.5-4GW of installed wind or 5-6GW of solar capacity.
The comments about capacity factors, attacking that original title, ranged from ‘reasonable’ sort of comments to absurdist whining as a means to attack renewables.
But, for fun, lets play a math game of notional values w/18MW of natural gas and 1291 of renewables.
Here are three assumption sets off the top of the head:
- NatGas at 50%, renewables well done with average of 33%
- This is likely that this is high end re the natural gas as the 12MW are likely peaker, not baseload(natural gas combined cycle plants, baseload generation often, averaged 56% in 2015), generation.
- This seems likely in shooting range of the actual renewables with the wind/solar mix (though my supposition is that the 33% is probably in range of 10-20% lower than actual production — this is very amenable to analysis but requires going through all the additional renewable sites w/the projected capacity figure for each of the sites.
- NatGas as peaker plus, 20% (rather than <5%); renewables at 25%
- This is perhaps in range of the NatGas (likely somewhat high though, see 2012 charting)
- Pretty pessimistic re the renewables, with weak wind production.
- NatGas is 100%; renewables are just 20%
- This is incredibly high (actually essentially impossible) re the NatGas as it assumes 24/7/365 operations with zero minutes of downtime for maintenance.
- The renewables is undoubtably low, with an assumption of systematically poor production from the installed wind farms. This likely is in the ballpark of just 60% of the likely renewables figure.
So, with those assumptions, what how do each of these scenarios play out in terms of electricity production on average.
Scenario 1 provides the equivalent of 9MW constant NatGas with renewables 430MW constant. Okay, renewables only 48X the natural gas …
For scenario 2, NatGas is 3.6MW constant and renewables at 318MW constant. Renewables at 88X the natural gas constant.
For scenario 3 (which is absurdly unrealistic), NatGas is 18MW constant and renewables are ‘just’ 258MW. In an absolutely unreasonable ‘worst case’ outlier scenario, the added renewable capacity will deliver >14X the electrons to the grid as the new natural.
Okay, moving away from added faceplate capacity to actual contributions to the electrical grid, the ‘reality’ is that the additional renewable electricity capacity will provide somewhere (reasonably) between 25X and >100X the electricity as the new natural gas systems.
Really want to whine that the title was 70X focused on faceplace capacity figure?
Tags: analysis · electricity
The South Continent is, again, going through a massive heat wave with devastatingly hot temperatures in Pakistan and India.
In 2015, the 1,300 killed in the heat wave overwhelmed capacity “and the fast-decaying corpses couldn’t be buried quickly enough.”
Here is a sad, yet tangible example of adaptation in the face of mounting climate-change impacts:
Thank God, we are better prepared this year. God forbid that it happens again but we have already dug graves to accommodate 300 bodies
As another example of adaptation in an effort to reduce the death tool, with “700 makeshift relief centres, dishing out drinking water and rehydration salts” in the Karachi area along with “nearly 200 first response centres across the city, offering basic heat-stroke treatment to swiftly stabilise patients.”
[Read more →]
Tags: climate change · climate disruption
UPFRONT: Hillary Clinton — unlike Donald Trump — has a serious and substantive plan to help American coal miners and mining communities flourish as the nation and global community move beyond coal. Because of reporting on Clinton’s (non)gaffe on coal and her (campaign’s) reaction to it, few Americans — and few in coal country — seem to realize the robustness, substance and even quality of her campaign’s Plan for Revitalizing Coal Communities (see opening paragraphs after the fold …).
In the ‘sound-bite-ation‘ of the American (and, sigh, increasingly global) political process, any phrase powerful in isolation and out of context can be leveraged out-of-context for creating a powerful meme. This abusive approach to political engagement is far from new but seems to be ever-more dangerous with skillful communicators leveraging ‘new’ media tools. Fighting such abuse is hard and reflective of an overlapping concept: “a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth gets out of bed.” The manipulative sound-biting can move quickly and powerfully — and can be hard to counter, especially if a ‘defense’ doesn’t even occur.
Such was (is) the case with Hillary Clinton’s “gaffe on coal”. Most politically-aware Americans — and certainly all in ‘coal country’ have heard:
we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business
Now, if I were a miner, a family member of a miner, in a business reliant on miners, etc …, that phrase would outrage.
As one who sees as rapid a possible reduction of burning of coal — as well as one who strongly supports treating miners and mining communities as ‘heroes’ who have long sacrificed to power the nation (the world) and who advocates for aggressive action to introduce clean energy economic streams (read jobs! jobs! jobs!) into ‘coal’ communities — this phrasing really rang false to me.
And, facing withering attacks, Hillary Clinton seemingly backtracked from this comment and, as widely reported by pundits and headlines,
Not surprisingly, in the shadow of Trump media challenges (read the entire twitter feed), the media has run long and hard with Clinton’s “gaffe” and apology of it.
Few journalists or media outlets have, however, taken the few seconds required to place this truly in context and thus actually inform the readers. And, even the ones that have, often have the substance buried within a larger piece headlined about “apology”. And, since the vast majority of people read only that headline, the general populace remains misinformed.
What was the context of that sentence? That phrase, that soundbite that has become gospel for those attacking Hillary in ‘coal country’ had a context, a rich context that makes clear that the totality of substance is far different than what she is tarred with. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, had a thoughtful article (Make America Empathetic Again) on how Hillary is pilloried for what can be misconstrued out of context while Donald is given a free ride for fundamental ignorance and”‘making a promise he can’t keep”. From that,
Politically, it was not, to be charitable, a wise thing to say. But consider the context of that line, at a March CNN town hall:
“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim? And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.”
The media often don’t put comments of this sort in context because, as you can see above, it takes a big fat, space-consuming paragraph to make it clear that she was speaking with empathy for coal miners, not consigning them to the economy’s dustbin.
Within context, there is not a ‘gaffe’ here. Obviously, on reflection, what if Secretary Clinton had said something even slightly different, ‘that 21st century trends will put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business’? That would be truthful and align with the plan the Clinton campaign has issued. The soundbite, however, will remain that sentence out of a paragraph and remain without the paragraph’s and the coal revitalization’s context for the vast majority of Americans — in no small part because few journalists will follow Milbank’s lead and make an effort to provide context.
This post was, in part, sparked by a David Robert’s 23 tweet ‘look’ at the issue of how do reporters cover outrageous behavior, making an analogy between ‘outrage fatigue’ during the Bush Administration and during the Trump campaign. And, the double-standard where journalists attack reasonable politicians more fiercely, for relatively minor ‘gaffes’, while letting pass seriously (serial) outrageous statements and behavior by those who move from one untruthful to racist to demagogic item to the next.
7. It just seemed like the Bushies’ capacity for evil was greater than anyone’s capacity even to *track* it, much less to fight it.
8. But as a consequence, *dozens* of minor scandals went by with barely a ripple. There was just no institutional capacity to deal w/ it.
9. The same thing is (already) going on w/ Trump. A neo-Nazi delegate? Women are what? Trade war with who? Scrap EPA? Wait …
10. It’s so much that no one piece of it really sticks. Contrast this w/ coverage of Clinton’s campaign.
11. Clinton is more of a typical politician, w/ reasonably mainstream views & a high degree of message discipline. So when she slips up …
12. with a “gaffe” like the one on coal miners, there’s plenty of time for reporters to lovingly toy w/ it, really make it into a Thing.
Yup, “reporters lovingly” made the coal comment “a Thing” — a Thing with far too many legs and, for most Americans, a Thing without context.
The truth — whether perfect or not — Hillary Clinton has, unlike Donald Trump, proposed a serious plan to address the challenges that coal miners and coal communities face in the coming years, to provide them paths toward prosperity even ad the nation and the rest of humanity burn ever less coal. Sadly, few journalists seem interested in moving past a ‘gaffe’ to actually informing people about Clinton’s concepts.
[Read more →]
Tags: 2016 Presidential Election · coal · media
Areas of the South continent are burning up.
All hell broke loose in India, as mercury in Phalodi, Rajasthan shattered all the temperature records on Thursday. The desert town recorded maximum temperature of 51°C, which is the highest day maximum ever recorded in the country.
51 degrees celsius. For those metric-challenged Americans, let’s put that into Fahrenheit: 123.8F.
When I did that calculation in my head, my first thought is captured here:
The basic guidance to American homeowners: set the hot water at 120F to save a little energy and, perhaps even more importantly, to reduce the risk of scalding.
In other words, water at the ambient temperature in Phalodi, India, is hotter than the hot water coming out of my hot water heater.
That is, well, hot …
Reading a bit more, another shocking moment.
Despite the generalized media mediocrity in terms of accurately discussing extreme weather within a climate-change context, this article introduced me to a new form of implicit climate denial. Rather that this heat wave being driven by a range of factors, including climate change,
All blame for the abnormally hot weather conditions can be attributed to Pakistan,
Evidently, I guess, India’s record heat is prima facie evidence of Pakistani weather warfare.
That led to this Twitter reflection:
March 31st, 2016 · 1 Comment
While the Bernie bird video has gone viral, CitiSven has focused on a prominent item in the images that — well — probably almost everyone else let their eyes pass over without consciously registering that there was a water bottle on the podium.
This guest post is a far more thoughtful and eloquent look at water bottles on the podium than my discussion, several years ago, of Barack Obama’s Drinking Problem.
By now, everyone has seen the iconic photo of the bird landing on Bernie Sanders’ podium at a recent rally in Portland. While the reactions to what’s come to be known as the “Birdie Sanders” incident have ranged from “the universe is rooting for Bernie” to “it’s a bird, alright,” depending, I suppose, on the observer’s affiliation in the Democratic primary, the spontaneous and synergistic convergence of natural world with human emotion undoubtedly made for an iconic image.
Personally, I thought it was a genuinely sweet moment. However, as someone who cares deeply about said natural world I couldn’t help but feel disturbed by something in the image that was smaller than Bernie but larger than the bird: the single-use plastic water bottle.
[Read more →]
Tags: environmental · guest post · plastic · political symbols
When Secretary Chu announced the Department of Energy’s SunShot program in February 2011, many (okay, most or nearly all)
Sunshot program: utility solar target
energy (related) analysts thought that the target of $0.05 per kilowatt hour for large-scale solar electricity delivery to the grid was beyond simply ambitious. Great, perhaps, to have a stretch goal but I can recall multiple conversations where (highly?) knowledgeable people expressed great skepticism.
Since then, plunging solar prices and skyrocketing penetration have made that ‘stretch goal’ into a very conservative and rather pessimistic target. The latest indication: just finished bidding for Mexican solar electricity from industrial facilities has come in at less than 5 cents per kwh:
In a sign of how quickly the energy economics are shifting Mexico took the lead in the race for one of the lowest ever recorded $ per MWh for a solar project in the World.
$40.5 MWh was the average price for a solar project and is incredible and showing a huge 30% jump from the previous record holder Austin Energy in Texas bid of $57.1 MWh (… this was still lower than the famous $57.8 MWh paid by ACWA Power in Dubai in 2014).
To translate, $40.50 per megawatt hour is $0.0405 per kilowatt hour (e.g., 4.05 cents per kWh).
This is 2016 and Mexico will see solar facilities built providing electricity to the grid 20 percent below the Sunshot program’s target.
Several months ago, with US solar pricing already down to 5 cents per kWh (okay, after various support programs), RUMINT (rumor intelligence) suggested that DOE was considering lowering the SunShot target … to as low as 3 cents per kilowatt hour.
Plunging solar prices suggests that might be the right thing to do.
[Read more →]
Tags: electricity · Solar Energy
For a decade, at least, many closing tracking climate issues in the United States have advocated that — regretfully in many ways — climate was/is a serious wedge issue that does not distinguish the two major parties but which could have impact in swaying voters toward those candidates aligned with scientists and scientific understanding.
This advocacy has been at odds with the traditional “Very Serious People” political advisors who reap in the dough via media advertising bundling, polling, and ever-so sage advice to political campaigns. Thus, candidate after candidate, election after election, the professional pols have advised candidates to ‘keep their mouth shut’ on climate.
In 2008, then candidate and now Senator Jeff (Energy Smart) Merkley (D-OR) explained to me that he spoke every single day about climate and clean energy in his Senate race even though his political advisors recommended otherwise.
I view energy as perhaps the most critical issue … national security … economic security … Global Warming. We, the United States, must show leadership. … We must turn to rebuilding a new energy economy and save the planet from its mounting fever.
His point: if he (we) think it so critical an issue, we should speak to citizens (voters) about it: to mobilize the concerned and create concern in the unconcerned. And, the corollary that it would be fundamentally dishonest to not discuss an issue, a critical issue, and then seek to act on it when elected.
As to that mounting fever, Merkley called out Oregon’s university students.
When I visited universities and colleges, I would have an informal poll about what issues mattered to them. Every single time, Global Warming was the number one issue. They get it. We need to help others get it.
Merkley saw (sees) climate and clean energy as not just a critical issue to address but also, at the core, a winning political issue: that doing the right thing is also the right thing politically.
That perspective, however, has been too rarely shared. And, what Merkley commented on as to his political advisors seems to have been the norm.
The question is: is that norm falling apart or, even stronger, has it shattered? Have the chattering classes of professional political advisors woken up to climate not just an important issue but as a winning one?
A recent Democracy Corps “Friends” memo focusing on Donald Trump vulnerabilities among Republican voters sparked this thinking/question. From Stanley Greenberg and James Carville, the executive summary has this paragraph:
Moderates form 31 percent of the Republican Party base, and they are solidly pro-choice on abortion and hostile to pro-life groups. About one in five are poised to defect from the party. The party is divided down the middle on gay marriage, climate change, and the N.R.A.
Climate change, in the highlighting to Democratic Party elite concerned about how to deal with a Donald Trump nomination (and down-ballot GOP candidates), is right up there with “gay marriage” and “the N.R.A.”
This 11 page memo is filled with polling material and potential messaging paths to swing these potential swing GOP voters.
The key point is emphasizing fissures splitting the party in two:
Emerging issues like gun control, climate change and the role of government are already dividing the party down the middle between the Tea Party and Evangelical bloc on one hand and the Observant Catholics and Moderates on the other. Each bloc encompasses almost half of GOP base. [p 7]
A few paragraphs later,
Something important may be happening on climate change. A majority of the Observant Catholics and two-thirds of moderates say reporting that 2015 was the hottest year on record and the consensus of scientists on climate change is true, not the fiction of the liberal media.
Thus, a majority of one half of the GOP — about 30 percent of the party — are totally at odds with the GOP elite (and certainly both leading GOP Presidential candidates) on climate change. And … AND … this “something important” merits discussion and highlighting by D VSP political consultants like James Carville.
In terms of taking on @TheRealDonald,
The strongest attacks on Trump charge that he is an ego-maniac who cares more about himself than the country, that he is very disrespectful towards women, and that he is a threat to national security and should not have control of our nuclear weapons.
After that risky ego-maniac issue, turning to direct policy substance
We can see the potential to shift the vote with attacks concerning his support for a coal agenda over a clean energy future, his ability to deal with national security issues, and his disrespect towards women. In a regression analysis controlling for demographics and other factors, these charges against Trump had a significant impact on the likelihood of supporting Clinton over Trump in the re-vote.
Note that in the presented analysis, the “Big Oil/Dirty Energy vs Clean Energy Future” had the strongest resonance in getting GOP voters to say that they would vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump, if he is the GOP nominee.
Perhaps the tide has shifted and the professional political elite have come to the realization that climate change matters — even to a political campaign. If this memo is indicative, we should expect political advisors to recommend significant clean energy discussion(s) by their candidates.
NOTE: For a different perspective on this memo, see this EDF post.
March 21st, 2016 · 1 Comment
At the moment, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s facebook post on Donald Trump is shooting around the net.
While much of the focus is her defining of Trump as “loser”, the fourth paragraph is the most substantively important discussion. In this, Warren elucidates what is at stake in this election:
- Affordable college.
- Accountability for Wall Street.
- Healthcare for millions of Americans.
- The Supreme Court.
- Big corporations and billionaires paying their fair share of taxes.
- Expanded Social Security.
- Investments in infrastructure and medical research and jobs right here in America.
- The chance to turn our back on the ugliness of hatred, sexism, racism and xenophobia.
- The chance to be a better people.
That is, simply, a powerful and (at its core) truthful list. Even so, Senator Warren misses the most critical and fundamentally truthful point:
Electing Donald Trump could well be the final nail on the coffin in averting catastrophic climate chaos.
Simply put, despite concerns about inadequate progress or measures (for, at least, the first term), the vast majority of the U.S. government’s progress on climate change in recent years is attributable to the Obama White House — to President Barack Obama.
A partial list …
All of this is Administrative action — done in accord with (and in fulfillment of) laws passed by Congress, but Administrative action nonetheless.
Donald Trump is, simply, a climate change denier, a rejector and distorter of basic science. (Nice window: 6 of @RealDonaldTrump tweets on climate change.) The Environmental Protection Agency is at the top of his list for cutting (or, at minimum, alongside the Department of Education).
A simple set of questions:
- What might one expect from a “President Donald Trump” when it comes to climate change?
- Would President Donald Trump reverse Obama Administration progress on the issues above and otherwise?
- Can we afford moving the clock back years or decades?
From record-low Arctic Ice to ever more breaking of record high temperatures (specific dates, month-to-month, annual, …) to catastrophic weather events worsened by climate change to …, the climate change threat is worsening.
We are seeing progress – serious progress – as, for example, energy-related emissions seem to be plateauing and heading for decreases. The increased availability of and massive drop in prices for renewable energy (solar, wind) and energy efficiency (such as LEDs, electric cars) give hope that that progress can continue and accelerate. That ‘progress’ is, however, not enough and requires acceleration — more than a doubling down — across the economy (domestically and internationally).
President Donald Trump — and the people he would populate the Administration with — almost certainly would work diligently to put the brakes on (and outright reverse) the progress that has been and is being made to reduce the risks of catastrophic climate change.
Unlike everything else on Senator Warren’s list, the next President could put the brakes on or accelerate U.S. government efforts related to climate change alone. And, while everything on Senator Warren’s list matters, addressing climate change is a sine quo non for fostering a prosperous and secure nation for the decades to come.
With all due respect, Senator Warren, the absence of that existential threat from your list is glaring.
Tags: 2016 Presidential Election · climate change