April 23rd, 2009 · Comments Off on Earth (Day) Science: Climate and the energy budget
This guest post from alefnot is a useful look at the climate change science.
The EPA recently announced that greenhouse gases pose a threat to health and welfare through their role in climate change. Climate change is a complex, nebulous thing that we seem to find difficult to attribute to anything tangible. So what is climate, this thing that is threatening to change in a way that can end society as we know it and possibly worse? There are a number of answers, depending on the nature of the question: “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”. Climate is the mean state of the atmosphere. It is the time-averaged temperature and humidity of a region. This last answer provides the key, for both temperature and humidity are related to energy.
So let’s take a step back and look at the big picture: climate is a manifestation of the energy budget at the surface of the Earth. Climate change is the variation of that energy budget.
April 23rd, 2009 · Comments Off on With critique, praise for ABC
ABC has rightfully been receiving rebukes for an inflammatory headline for its 21 April “Clean Coal?” story. In short, Brian Ross’ “Blotter” posting (with the embedded video) is entitled RFK Jr. Blasts Obama as ‘Indentured Servant’ to Coal Industry. In fact, Robert F Kennedy, Jr, did not say this in RFK JR’s interview with Brian Ross. While RFK JR did heavily criticize the coal industry (not surprisingly) and does talk about politicians as “indentured servants”, he never directly states the inflammatory “indentured servants” (which is one step short, one would guess, of calling the first African American President a “slave”) line about President Obama, despite Ross pushing him multiple times with leading questions seeking criticism of Obama. The misrepresentation of RFK, Jr’s words in both the headline and the story was, well, wrong. And, the failure to change the web headline, even after all the critiques, is wrong.
However … However, there are several things where ABC merits praise.
Well, for one day a year, some people ‘wear green’ on their sleeve, feeling as if that one day of sacrifice by recycling those cans they normally throw out has done their share of saving the planet.
For those needing a day of recovery, 23 April is “Fock the Earth Day”
One of the most promising, yet also most frustrating, aspects of dealing with Climate Change is how the noise (the static) of the debate makes it difficult for the majority of people to understand the power of the “No Regrets” strategy opportunity and promise.
Reduced to its journalistic essence, “no regrets” goes something like this:
Atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC refrigeration chemicals) are rising rapidly…virtually guarantees the planet will trap more solar energy and the earth will grow warmer.
But the plausible range of temperature change is as little as 2 degrees Fahrenheit to as much as 9 … [does] not tell us much about the ensuing environmental and economic damage or the difficulty of adaptation. In agriculture, for example, hard-to-predict shifts in rainfall are likely to have far greater consequences than the direct effect of hotter summers.
Gradual weather change would probably prove only an expensive headache for humans. … there is some possibility of discontinuous, catastrophic change — for example, a huge release of methane from the melting Arctic tundra that turned the cornfields of Iowa into a desert in a single generation. And there is little doubt that thousands of marine and plant species would be decimated by even a gradual warming.
Note that this is from nearly 20 years ago, during the First Bush Administration, and the formal reports, with imprimateur of a Republican Administration made clear that Global Warming/Climate Change was/is real, that it had serious risks, and merited actions. But what actions …
What to do? The panel’s “no regrets” strategy starts with emissions-reducing initiatives that would pay for themselves in greater economic efficiency. High on this list is energy conservation for buildings, vehicles and industrial processes.
There are paths to cut radically emissions and reliance on fossil fuels that make absolutely sense before one even accounts for climate change. Mining and drilling for those negawatts and negagallons is the richest set of veins to tap into the United States … 20 years ago and today. And, those savings can be had for a fraction of the fiscal cost of producing new power.
And, when looking at producing new power, with each passing day “clean” sources are becoming more cost-competitive with polluting sources — even before considering the national security implications of dependency on foreign oil and the polluting costs of fossil fuels (whether asthma, cancer, mercury in the foodstream, smog visual impacts at National Parks, or Global Warming). Once factoring those “externalities” into our understanding and calculations, the ‘clean’ choice becomes an even more powerfully smart choice.
In short, the pure “No Regrets” strategy can only take us so far. We can, at a profit, carve a tremendous chunk out of the damaging impacts that our energy profligacy and polluting practices cause. At some point, however, the ‘profit’ motive fails to deliver. That is, it “fails to deliver” only if we choose to ignore something the NAS highlighted back in 1991: the uncertainty factor. Again,
there is some possibility of discontinuous, catastrophic change
Americans spend tremendous resources on “insurance”, hoping never to need it, but spending those resources “just in case”. Whether disability insurance through the Social Security taxes or additional private payments, health insurance, life insurance, or even travel insurance and extend product warranties, we “insure” ourselves to reduce the harm from and help us weather the potentially ‘catastrophic’ event (like our DVD player breaking 1 year and 1 day after purchase or coming down with a cancer that requires $100,000s of medical care and will keep us out of the work force for years).
Thus, a true “no regrets” strategy wrings out all those elements that will improve economic performance (as individuals, businesses, communities, nation). And, after doing so, asks the question: What is a logical cost assessment of the remaining risk and how much would it cost to reduce that risk? If the risk of sea level rise, species extinctions, disrupted agriculture, new infrastructure investments required to adapt to catastrophic climate change, etc can be valued at $20 trillion in “net present value” (NPV … value today, in today’s dollars), then an investment of $trillion or $4 trillion to obviate that risk is a well spent insurance policy.
And, this was the conclusion of that 1991 NAS panel,
the panel … would go further, buying a little insurance against an unexpectedly rainy (or, more likely, a very dry) day. This would surely include spending money to develop greenhouse-benevolent energy technologies that will be on the shelf and relatively affordable if they are needed. And it would probably also include reducing greenhouse emissions where there are only modest net costs.
Truth be told, some 20 years of near inaction (and, actually, worsening action) have made the exact recommendations clearly OBE, even if the overall sense of the report is spot on in terms of creating political and societal case for taking actions to mitigate catastrophic climate change.
And, the power of “No Regrets” is one reason why you will hear naysayers fighting so hard against “Green Jobs”, arguing that energy efficiency gains are false (Jovan’s Paradox), that renewables aren’t real, etc … They will strive to continue the confusion on this because they realize that as people understand that much of what needs to be done isn’t ‘sitting in the dark’, but finding ways to more cost effectively (efficiently) get them their lighting, the support for real action will grow. When people begin to realize that, almost certainly, we can make green by Going Green, the support for serious action on energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate change mitigation will mount. As people understand that it is not a question of the economy versus the environment, but the economy and the environment, the support for serious and aggressive action away from our fossil foolish heritage will mount.
Those who seek to keep the United States embedded in a 19th century energy system, who believe that the answer to everything is ‘more’ rather than use smarter, and look down beneath their legs when they hear energy (coal, natural gas, oil), are fearful of losing their record profits as Americans move toward an Energy Smart future. They wish to keep their profits and thus seek to confuse the public and the political system as to the value of aggressively pursuing a No Regrets Strategy. And, if we continue to listen to them as has been the case for far too long, we will only have regrets … quite serious regrets.
Hybrids are too often thought of simply in terms of personal vehicles.
They are also penetrating the big vehicle market space. Consider the average delivery truck and all its starts/stops. There is a lot of energy to capture there, which is why UPS is pursuing hybrids. And, as per Walmart and its hybrid trucks, they are hitting the semi-trailer world. There are also efforts to apply hybrids to trash trucks and offer the opportunity to silence those squealing brakes at 5:45 am. Ann Arbor, Michigan, has started to get hybrid buses as is London. And, well, now they’re coming to a school system (maybe) near you.
The Department of Energy just announced $10 million to go to another round of plug-in school bus development, to fund some 60 buses in a second round of testing.
For a number of years, there has been a Plug-In Hybrid Electric school Bus (PHEB, though I prefer PHESB) test program.
“These projects will help move technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace by improving their durability, reducing their costs, and validating their performance in real-world settings,” said Secretary Chu. “By investing in the vehicles of the future, we will create new jobs while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our environment.”
This is great, that there is more money going into this arena and that PHEBs are on the Secretary’s radar scope.
The question is: Is this enough? Is this as fast as it should be? Can we do more, faster?
John Boehner dismissed CO2 gas as a pollution concern, by claiming on ABC’s This Week, basically, that Cows release it, so what’s the problem?
BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.
Boehner’s reasoning is wrong in so many ways, that it would be funny, if his startling lack of Scientific knowledge, weren’t so serious for future generations, that they hope to lead
First off, it’s another Greenhouse Gas, that is produced from the business-end of those Cows, he points to — METHANE.
And Methane IS the “Wild Card”, in the high-stakes Poker Game, of betting against the consequences of long term Climate Change.
Taxicab fleets are real leverage points for some quick gains in terms of saved energy and reduced pollution with the introduction of hybrids.
Unlike most drivers, there is a compelling cash payback case for hybrid taxis. The fuel savings alone can pay for the taxi’s entire purchase price in just a few years, while actually increasing gross revenues as well since passengers seem to tip hybrid taxi drivers more than those driving traditional taxis. Thus, operating and ownership costs go down while revenues go up, this is the sort of winning formula that should attract all businessmen.
And, by the way, the business can reduce its footprint at the same time.
If anything, this understates the case in favor of hybrid cars. For example, many of the old Crown Vics and other used cars frequently in the ‘taxi biz’ get in the range of 10-12 miles, not 17 miles, per gallon in actual practice according to taxi drivers I’ve talked with. And, the Camry is a nice ride, but it gets significantly lower mileage than, for example, the Toyota Prius or even the soon to be out Ford Fusion. And, actual mileage can be over 100,000 miles per year and, in some areas, getting closer to 150,000 miles per year per licensed taxi. In this situation, the pure cash payoff for going ‘hybrid’ comes pretty fast.
In any event, we would all be better off if cities mandated a move toward high-fuel efficiency taxis (perhaps, with very limited exception, minimum of 30 mpg to begin with), with loan assistance for the move to hybrids helping speed this process.
In a rather astounding, inappropriate for youth moment, House Minority Leader John Boehner chose to put his ASS on display. Anti-Science Syndrome, that is.
quite frankly I doubt if the United States will turn its back on coal. We are generating over 50% of our electrical energy from coal.”
This was part of an overall discussion of the importance and value of investing in Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) research and development, which Secretary Chu rightly discusses as a possible and ‘if’ it can be made to work cost effectively, rather than some certainty that we should rely on for our collective futures. And, he correctly highlights that the United States does “not exist in a vacuum” and should consider the role of coal elsewhere, such as in China, India, etc. Thus, there is much in Chu’s discussion that merits more serious discussion, analysis and consideration.
However, Secretary Chu is getting a very significant point wrong. The United States is NOT “generating over 50% of our electrical energy from coal.”
April 15th, 2009 · Comments Off on US Chamber of Commerce using tax dollars to undermine energy / climate progress?
The evidence is mounting that the US Chamber of Commerce (USCOC) is mounting its efforts to undermine legislative initiatives from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party-controlled Congress using funds that, ultimately, come from the US taxpayer’s bailout funding of Wall Street firms. As discussed in Politico , Open Left, and elsewhere, the US Chamber of Commerce’s attacks on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) almost certainly rely on funding from firms with their hands quite deeply in the taxpayers’ pockets. Without its dues from bailed out firms, would the USCOC be able to afford a $1 million ad campaign (announced just Monday) against EFCA?
A serious question that merits asking: Are taxpayer funds being flipped from guaranteeing a firm’s survival and to helping get the financial market liquid again into lobbying on public policy issues?
Taxpayer money went to companies so they could rebuild their fundamentals. By the Chamber’s now-admission, bailout recipients are giving some of that money to the Chamber (aka, not using it to rebuild their fundamentals). Then, the Chamber uses that taxpayer money to fund ads against workers in political swing states.
The question, of course, doesn’t stop with EFCA. Could the fossil-foolish USCOC be pursuing any of its other anti-America and anti-Americans agenda items without the resources coming from bailed-out firms?
For example, tomorrow the USCOC will be holding a blogger’s press call to advocate their new campaign: “Project? No Project!” to argue against NIMBYism. Now, to be absolutely honest, there are real painful issues with local NIMBYists hindering sensible moves forward to a prosperous, climate-friendly society. The astroturf-financed efforts against Cape Wind, the offshore Cape Cod wind project, is the poster child for hypocritical and counter-productive fighting of renewable energy projects.
However, the concern over “green” seems a thin sheen, at most, with the effort clearly seeking to provide at least a fig-leaf of concern over how NIMBY-ism (the “Not In My Back Yard” syndrome) is preventing moving forward with “Green jobs”-related projects to advocate, in fact, for opening the flood-gates for destructive fossil-fuel exploitation. It is, after all, the problem of “radical environmental activism” that requires focus, rather than discussion of how (for example) Mountain-Top Removal (MTR) is devastating Appalachia.
Listening to Bill Kovacs, Vice President of Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce [editorial note: “Environment” in his title makes one want to cry.] suggests the Chamber’s real agenda:
“Our experts tell us it will be 50 to 100 years before we can really develop the new technologies …”
Yes, for some reason, one has to be believe that those “experts” are all on Peabody and Exxon-Mobil fossil-foolish payrolls as the technologies already exist for making massive dents in our polluting energy practices.
Kovacs highlights that there is some $64 billion in coal-related projects that are being blocked by so-called “NIMBYism”. Reading through their list, however, reads like a Wall of Climate Heroes rather than some form of wall of NIMBY-ite shame..
Considering NIMBYism, one has to wonder how many executives of dues-paying corporations live in neighborhoods run by NIMBY-ite Home Owners Associations (HOA) that ban clothes lines and solar panels or, even, require energy wasting practices like maintaining natural gas outdoor lighting be kept on 24/7.
In some ways, the Chamber’s engagement on this issue should be welcomed, as misguided NIMBY-ism will inhibit moving forward with a new energy future.
The Chamber’s concerns, however, clearly do not seem tied to moving forward toward a clean energy future with anything like the haste the climate crisis suggests is required. Their “Green” fig leaf is nothing more than a tool to open the gates for aggressive exploitation of polluting energy sources.
And, returning to the opening, one has to wonder just how much of a truthiness-ridden campaign the Chamber would be able to mount if it weren’t for the laundering of taxpayer funds from bailed-out corporations.
Consider the average delivery truck and all its starts/stops. There is a lot of energy to capture there, which is why UPS is pursuing hybrids. And, as per 
Thus, there is much in Chu’s discussion that merits more serious discussion, analysis and consideration.