Many of us are disappointed about the results coming from COP15, and we’re concerned that the world isn’t addressing climate change fast enough. We’re afraid that by the time we get enough people on board it will be too late.
One of the problems we face is that climate change policy isn’t negotiable like other issues, where opposing interests meet at a negotiating table, and a compromise still works to the benefit of both. Climate change is a case were we need all of the forest, but sitting at a negotiating tables leaves us beholden to compromise — we are left with only some of the trees or none at all. We must return to the tables again and again. But we’re making progress, and if we keep fighting we will continue to move forward. Each baby step is a success that will take us to the next.
If we will continue toward the hard stuff like reducing carbon emission to 350ppm, we have to talk with people outside the blogosphere. This is our family, our friends, and our neighbors — particularly the ones who haven’t warmed up to climate change…
In honor of this anniversary, afeiller suggests calling Joe Lucas and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE):
Lucas deserves credit for helping to pick up the pieces and continuously reform Big Coal’s image after disasters like these remind people that mining and burning coal will never be a clean process, no matter what you may hear on glossy television advertisements. He can be reached by calling ACCCE at (703) 684-7473? and asking for him by name. It may help you get through if you remind the operator that today is a special day for Lucas and the entire industry.
Reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) show that the TVA’s Kingston coal plant dumped into the Emory River in 2008 an estimated 140,000 pounds of arsenic contained in coal ash — more than twice the reported amount of the toxin discharged into U.S. waterways from all U.S. power plants in 2007.
The new Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data submitted to the EPA by TVA also show that the Kingston ash spill deposited nearly 320 tons of vanadium in the Emory River, or more than seven times the total discharge of this toxic pollutant from all power plants in 2007. The Kingston facility singlehandedly discharged more than of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel into the Emory River last year than reported discharges of those pollutants from the entire U.S. power industry in 2007.
a total of 2.66 million pounds of 10 toxic pollutants – arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc. That compares to the much lower 2.04 million pounds of such discharges from all U.S. power plants into surface waters in 2007. The 2.66 million pound of toxic pollutants dumped into the Emory River in 2008 is nearly 45 times higher than the 59,950 pounds of such materials the TVA Kingston coal plant reported that it released into all U.S. waterways in 2007.
Hmmm … perhaps Joe and his colleagues merit some thanks. After all, isn’t breaking records a good thing?
The questions of our individual and societal water footprint and virtual water are of ever increasing importance as we approach peak freshwater in regions around the globe. With all my attention to energy and environmental issues, including more than a little to water issues (including Energy COOL ways to cut one’s own water consumption), I’d never actually tried to calculate my water use. (Just did so, see H2O’s water calculator.) And, while having read on ‘virtual water‘, I remain(ed) somewhat confused about real implications. (Okay, raspberries are 18+ gallons per cup produced except, I wonder, what is the real “virtual water” calculation for those 15 pounds that I gathered with my kids in a wild patch, that we walked to, that has never seen irrigation?)
With knowing that I didn’t “know” this subject well, I welcomed a pre-publication (scheduled for 10 March 2010) chance to look at Thomas Kostigen’s the green blue book, advertised as “the simple water-savings guide to everything in your life.”
Sigh, this review is going to be a short one as the book fell far short of expectations and requirements. Most notably, there does not seem to be any discussion of the intersection of energy and water. We’re not just talking dams, but the water going up in steam (pdf):
In the United States, approximately 89% of the energy produced in power plants is generated by thermoelectric systems, which evaporate water during the cooling of the condenser water
With dams, there is the issue of evaporation.
final result for typical thermoelectric power plants was 0.47 gal (1.8 L) of fresh water evaporated per kWh of end-use electricity. Hydroelectric power plants evaporated 18 gal (68 L) of fresh water per kWh consumed by the end user. Combined, these values give an aggregate total for the United States of 2.0 gal/kWh (7.6 L/kWh).
Let’s however, look at this in a slightly different way in terms of that 2 gallons per kilowatt hour average, across the United States, of energy use. In other words, reducing energy demand (whether due to conservation or energy efficiency or a combination) has a direct impact on reducing water requirements. (And, by the way, vice versa. California is somewhat the extreme, but something like 19% of the state’s electricity is dedicated to moving and purifying water. Water at the tap has an energy footprint, just as energy has a water footprint.)
In terms of the blue green book, “in the laundry room” suggests using a machine rather than hand-washing (one handwashed garment using as much water as a machine load), an energy-star front-loader rather than a top-loading washer, and advocates cutting down on the number of loads (full machine). Okay, but what about line drying, rather than using a dryer, to cut on electricity use and, therefore, cut down on water use?
And, the lack of energy as part of the discussion makes me wonder at conclusions/recommendations. For example, the recommendation to “choose a refrigerated air conditioner instead of an evaporative cooler” because “Air conditioner units … use more energy but they save water.” Well, would that be true if we looked at the energy footprint of that larger water use.
Sigh …
the green blue book disappointed this reader and isn’t on the recommended list for any reader. [Read more →]
The Washington Post / ABC News 13 Dec 09 poll had both some gloomy and some bright news when it comes to Americans’ perspectives about climate change and how/whether we should act in response to them.
One item that seems absent from reporting is certainly absent from The Post‘s poll and discussion of it: causation and the Washington Post‘s role in that causation. There has, according to this poll, been a notable drop in public understanding of climate change, a notable drop in confidence in scientists, and a weakening of public support for action to mitigate climate change (along with an massive increase in political polarization of the issue). According to Post reporting, this just seems to have happened … there is no causal agent, no one responsible for a shift in opinion that just seems to have occurred out of thin air.
Why, for example, would Washington Post subscribers be confused about climate change?
The Washington Post‘s staff’s decisions of what to say in their articles and who to publish on the OPED pages represents a quite active role in presenting the climate denier and climate confuser position, which provides a rather stark statement as to where the Post falls when it comes to factual and truthful discussion of the science of Global Warming / climate change and the policy implications that might derive from it.
To report this poll in passive voice, ‘these changes have occurred’, without addressing causal factors (including, but far from solely, The Washington Post‘s role) is to have left the story less than half-reported.
if there’s a party to blame, it’s China. It’s China that was off meeting with India and Brazil, trying to avoid getting ensnared in any commitments at all, forcing Obama to track them down. It was China that refused to sign off on the target of 50% global reductions by 2050. It was China that forced rich countries not to commit to 80% reductions by 2050, lest it some day have to live up to that target. (Yes, China forced rich countries to trim their ambitions. “Ridiculous,” said Merkel.) It was China who, up until the very last minute, refused to agree to any international verification at all …
It’s China, in short, that was unwilling to sign onto anything but the most bare-bones framework.
Watching ‘from a distance’, this is a summation of a growing impression re the PRC position in international climate negotiations.
China “systematically wrecked” the Copenhagen climate summit because it feared being presented with a legally binding target to cut the country’s soaring carbon emissions [according to] a senior official from an EU country, present during the negotiations … accusation … of obstructive Chinese behaviour, reflected widespread anger among many delegations about the nation’s actions at the conference.
Right before our eyes we have the development of the biggest example one could imagine of the free rider problem. If the other major emitters and potentially high emitters do the right thing and curb their CO2 pollution significantly, it will only make it easier for China to do whatever it wants. The rest of the world will leave more of our global remaining CO2 budget for China, and they will continue using vast amounts of cheap coal, burned in filthy, old-tech plants, to lower their costs so they can continue to be a low-cost producer of many products they export.
Without a doubt, there is truth (and substance) to the above, but let’s take a step back to consider the PRC’s approach from a different angle.
The Chinese Leadership
doesn’t suffer from rabid anti-science syndrome conditions, thus listens to their technical experts — including their climate scientists
structure & Chinese cultural heritage able to plan for and structure itself for the very long term
is growing increasingly convinced that climate change represents a serious threat to their nation
is increasingly concerned over fossil-fuel (oil and higher-quality coal) import dependencies thus increasingly
is focusing national investment re clean energy options
wants to see serious global action re climate change mitigation
seeking to maximize advantage to PRC through this whole process
Thus, the Chinese are acting to mitigate climate change (their clean energy investments, increasing focus on energy efficiency, etc …) but is seeking to get every possible penny (whether US or Euro pennies) it can get from other nations to gain advantage for the PRC over the long term.
Thus,the Chinese will play every single negotiation to the brink, giving away the absolute minimum they see as necessary, even as they are moving their own nation on a ‘clean energy technology’ path forward.
Thus, perhaps the reality is that the Chinese are negotiating, hard, for every advantage … even while turning their economy on a path toward dominance (victory?) in the clean energy revolution.
What might this suggest for European and US policy?
If the above points are, at their core, correct, the best path might be to set out on a serious ‘arms race’: to arm ourselves (whether looking at this from EU or US perspective) to the greatest advantage with clean energy technology — which includes, of course, not just energy R&D funding, but serious commitments to the deployment of clean energy and energy efficiency throughout the economy.
Right now, China is committing ever more resources to seeking advantage in solar, wind, and other clean energy arenas. If their investments continue without matching (or larger) investments in Europe and the United States, the “Old World” and the “New World” will be beholden to China for key elements of our economies. A question to ask: does that scenario bode well for the future prospects for Old World and/or New World prosperity?
This suggests that future climate change negotiations and the prospects for mitigation of climate change would be best served by serious (crash) programs on both sides of the Atlantic to develop and deploy a broad range of clean energy systems.
December 21st, 2009 · Comments Off on A 2009 Clean of Coal in America?
It is not hard, when it comes to climate change, to see signs for grave concern and pessimism. Ice is in retreat and decline globally. The oceans are acidifying. Habitats are moving up hill and moving away from the equator. The reality of climate chaos is with us and the end of COP15 without a “fair, aggressive, and binding” treaty to set the world on a path toward 350 ppm (as unlikely as it was to have happened there) distresses many.
Yet, whether from exciting new Energy COOL technologies or nations making new commitments for emission reductions to other items, there are many signs of progress, of steps moving forward.
One of those comes from the notable retreat of coal in the United States of America. “Clean Coal” might be the rallying cry for those seeking to etch in stone coal’s future, the truth is that coal is a lessening part of the US electrical system (down to 42%, from over 50%, due to lower natural gas prices and the speeding introduction of renewable electricity) and looks to be a decreasing part of tomorrow’s electrical grid.
And, this could well be a significant sign of the turning of the tide against coal.
Since the beginning of the coal rush in 2001 when there were more than 150 proposed coal plants announced, 111 proposed new coal plants have been defeated or abandoned, keeping over 450 million tons of carbon dioxide out of the air each year.
Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, is seeing the success and seems buoyed by it.
The public is rising up, demanding cleaner energy, and developers and investors are taking note. There is a shift going on across America as companies realign away from old dirty practices involving coal and toward cleaner energy options, including wind, solar and becoming more efficient.
As much as a serious agreement at COP15 was desired, the truth is what matters is the facts on the ground. Due to efforts of people like Bruce, the facts are increasingly pointing to keeping coal in the ground and favoring the deployment of other electricity options.
Comments Off on A 2009 Clean of Coal in America?Tags:coal · electricity
December 21st, 2009 · Comments Off on Dr Seuss Traveled to COP15
Dr Seuss’ Lorax remains one of the most powerful works re the implications of placing “environment vs economy” rather than understanding how they are intrinsically combined along with a powerful indictment of placing economy over environment in terms of the devastating implications for health, quality of life, and other issues.
Here is the clearest summary of what resulted in Copenhagen seen to date:
No-one was satisfied, nobody won
Except the morons convinced it was really the sun
December 19th, 2009 · Comments Off on A far from FAB deal … and an unsigned one at that
When it comes to achievements in Copenhagen, the flowery rhetoric issued from (some) world leaders isn’t matched by the substance of accomplishments. And, from the other angle, physical reality and the necessity for serious action to mitigate (and, sadly, adapt to) climate change is unaddressed by the reality of what derived from Copenhagen.
this progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough. Going forward, we’re going to have to build on the momentum that we’ve established here in Copenhagen to ensure that international action to significantly reduce emissions is sustained and sufficient over time. We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.
The Copenhagen Accord announced on December 18 by U.S. President Barack Obama was not adopted by delegates to the United Nations climate conference here. Instead, delegates merely ‘noted’ the agreement’s existence, giving it no force whatsoever.
Simply put, the “Accord” was inadequate. And, all involved know it … despite the flowery language that surrounded it … and the world community wasn’t ready to sign an “Accord” worked out in the backroom between just a few of the world’s nation.
The struggle for meaningful action must move from the nagotiators’ backroom deals, involving people who clearly don’t understand the gravity of the challenges before us, and into the realm of tangible action. It won’t matter what came (or didn’t come) out of COP15 if the world’s economies began an economic race for domination of the clean energy future. It won’t be significant that COP15 failed to have a serious agreement signed if the nations around the world turn their economic stimulus packages from giving Green to Wall Street (and its equivalents) to greening Main Street.
Those fighting for meaningful action on climate change are well beyond frustrated. Below is a shared statement from many leading organizations.
We do not have the fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement that millions around the world hoped the world leaders gathered here would deliver.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, and massive popular support from citizens in countries North and South, world leaders chose national political self-interest over the fate of future generations and failed to resolve the issues blocking the road towards a just outcome. While this deal cannot be judged as a success, it is impossible to be without hope.
This year, from a strong, but small seed of climate campaigning, a movement touching millions of people in hundreds of countries around the world has grown. Over the last two weeks while leaders were dithering an additional 5 million people joined the campaign, resulting in a total of 15 million voices calling for a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal.
More than 250 partner organisations have come together to form an unprecedented alliance under the TckTckTck banner – including development, human rights, environment, religious and youth groups, trade unions and scout groups. Over three days of global action, these partners have mobilized unprecedented numbers of people campaigning for urgent action on climate change. In Copenhagen on December 12, one hundred thousand people marched in a powerful manifestation of this unity.
And, when naysayers, fearmongers, and the business-as-usual-crowd try to usurp the issue, they will be met by a surging sea of people from all around the globe and all walks of life unified in their demand for a real deal.
The global climate movement – more diverse than ever before – stands united in the face of tonight’s disappointing news. This weekend we are mounting an unprecedented response, with joint messaging appearing on the global public websites of our partners, to ensure world leaders know we are unimpressed with their lack of real progress and failure to deliver a real deal.
We have come so far in a short space of time. Millions around the world look to the future and see hope, justice, and opportunity. It is up to each of us to make our voices heard and to get the real deal that the world needs.
The world’s leaders still have a chance to get it right. They must realize that we expect, and will not accept, anything less.
They’re not done yet. Neither are we.
The following organisations have taken the extraordinary step of adding this consistent response to take over the home pages of their global websites.
December 18th, 2009 · Comments Off on Barton can’t see Arctic or Himalayas from his porch
While Sarah Palin might be able to see Russia from her front porch, evidently Representative Joe Barton can’t see the polar ice cap from his. Throwing aside the adage that politics ends at the water’s edge, Barton and some Republican global warming denying colleagues traveled to Copenhagen to try to undermine the COP15 talks.
Out of sight is evidently out of relevance for Texans? What Texans have had is severe droughts and severe storms and increasing average temperatures (with more highs than lows set, on average, as time goes on) with the reality of extensive low-lying coastal areas (Galveston) threatened by rising seas. Joe, it is “global” not Texan warming, even as Texas suffers from it.
No, Joe, Texans don’t have many ice caps even if they have at least one Representative meriting a dunce cap.
“We’re not going to let jobs be destroyed in America for some esoteric environmental benefit 100 years from now,” U.S. House of Representatives member Joe Barton
If one is unconcerned about being truthful, having strong debating skills is so much easier — a game to win points rather than a serious discussion to uncover and understand truth. In fact, at issue are far from just “esoteric environment benefit[s] 100 years from now”, even if there are some “esoteric” benefits. While China is rapidly turning to massive investments in the clean energy sector, investments that could secure it key advantages in the 21st century, Barton wishes to reinforce 20th and 19th century energy systems.
Pursuing a clean energy future would have multiple near term “wins”, being almost immediately, from jobs to increased international competitiveness to improved energy security to reducing (potential) adversaries’ funding streams to improving Americans’ health. Barton is far more concerned, it seems, with executive bonuses at fossil fuel companies than the health, wealth, and security of America and Americans.
Barton said he does not believe industrial emissions of carbon dioxide contribute to global warming and fears capping them would hobble the economy.
Said in the face of the conclusions reached by every major relevant scientific institution and academy around the globe. And, well, even most major self-proclaimed “skeptics” do not deny a role of human activity even as they seek to argue against humanity being the driving factor in current warming.
“If I am chairman two years from now, I’m going to repeal” measures such as U.S. funding to help developing countries battle climate change… the conservative Texas congressman boasted.
Well, why should we even consider giving aid? Putting aside any moral or ethical issues, the increased national security threats driving demands on American military forces and the potential boost of refugees seeking access to the United States evidently don’t merit consideration according to Joe.
Barton and five of his House colleagues traveled to Copenhagen to publicize their belief that carbon pollution should not be blamed for melting ice, rising sea levels and increasing chances of devastating flooding and drought.
“We don’t have an icecap in Texas,” Barton quipped to reporters.
The Republicans’ message was a reminder to Obama and his negotiators that anything they agree to in Copenhagen will have to be reviewed by Congress and that a Democratic majority in the House and Senate does not guarantee Obama can have his way.
Barton, who told reporters “there has really never been an independent assessment of the methodology or of the data” that underpin U.N. efforts to counter global warming, said he would welcome one and mentioned the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as one possibility.
Huh …
Joe, the National Academy of Sciences has been signatory to multiple statements about humanity’s role in driving climate change and the necessity for rapid action. For example, in June 2009, this multi-institutional appeal for action which began:
Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change
The damages that the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the United States in 2005, a number that reflects damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation relying on fossil fuels, motor vehicle transportation, and heat generation. The report also considers other effects that are not included in the figure, such as damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security
The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but because of human activities, like burning
fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect has been amplified and the Earth’s surface is warming at a faster rate than ever before in recorded history
As Joe calls on the NAS as the authority to turn to, perhaps he could actually listen to them so that he could reach a basic understanding of the realities of the challenges, opportunities, and necessities before us in tackling climate change.
In short, some good flowery language with huge gaps between the language and substance with some quite serious holes to fill in. Going to the title of this post, the most striking thing might just be the “X” and “Y” in the following:
Annex I Parties to the Convention commit to implement, individually or jointly, the quantified economy-wide emission targets for 2020 as listed yielding in aggregate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of X per cent in 2020 compared to 1990 and Y per cent in 2020 compared to 2005
Quick pause for definitions: Annex I parties are, writ large, developed nations that were already (or should have been, e.g., United States) covered by the Kyoto Accords.
Those numbers, however, are truly outdated against requirements for several reasons:
The scientific judgments were based on nations actually working on Kyoto Accord timelines, with serious reductions actually occurring, and truly did not account for the speed / extent of growth in developing world emissions in the intervening years. What truly matters, at the end of the day, is the total amount of Co2 (and other GHG) buildup in the atmosphere. Globally, we have ‘booked’ quite a bit more of the acceptable total amount in the past decade than was anticipated by the scientists who arrived at this estimated amount of required reductions.
Science and knowledge, writ large, progress and advance (not necessarily in a linear fashion, but does advance). And, an increasing number (and share) of the experts in the relevant scientific domains for understanding the complex climate system have concluded that we cannot afford to allow a stabilization at 450 ppm, the risks of catastrophic climate chaos are too great. 350 ppm is increasingly seen as where our efforts should aim … with getting there as soon as possible.
Now, two points about the inclusion of 2005:
This is a useful addition to the discussion, the world today is not that of 1990. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, for example, with one result being the shutting down of incredibly inefficient industrial facilities has made it ‘easy’ for many nations to cut emissions against 1990 targets. And, looking at it from another direction, the world’s largest single emitting nation in 2009 (the People’s Republic of China) wasn’t top tier in 1990.
On the other hand, the 2005 baseline is an interestingly problemmatic one in terms of framing the message and discussion. For multiple reasons (including the global financial recession, increased oil and coal prices, reduced natural gas prices, and increasingly rapid introduction of clean energy technologies), emissions are lower in many nations (notably the United States) today than in 2005. For discussing necessary cuts, it would be far easier in ‘political’ framing to be discussing the need for a 40% cut from today’s emission levels than, for example, a 50% cut from 2005 levels. And, it would be a more honest discussion, as well, since it would be a discussion of necessary change from where we are now, rather than taking our cue from some arbitrary historical point.
Many of us are disappointed about the results coming from COP15, and we’re concerned that the world isn’t addressing climate change fast enough. We’re afraid that by the time we get enough people on board it will be too late.
one of the most powerful works re the implications of placing “environment vs economy” rather than understanding how they are intrinsically combined along with a powerful indictment of placing economy over environment in terms of the devastating implications for health, quality of life, and other issues.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, and massive popular support from citizens in countries North and South, world leaders chose national political self-interest over the fate of future generations and failed to resolve the issues blocking the road towards a just outcome. While this deal cannot be judged as a success, it is impossible to be without hope.