Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Up front, the expert scientific community is near unanimous: climate change is occurring and human action is driving this change.  Simple truth:

“Over 97 percent of climate scientists have independently concluded that human-caused global warming is happening.”

As three leading science communication experts put in a US News & World Report OPED,

In the history of science, there have been few instances in which almost all experts in a particular field were in complete agreement.

Climate change is one of those instances.

Now for the troubling point.
Too many — under the withering propaganda attacks on climate science financed by the Kochs, Exxon, and others of their ilk — do not understand this.  And, this fact — that scientists have strong agreement on climate science — matters.  And, it even matters across the political spectrum.

A “Gateway Belief” is a piece of knowledge, a fact that — if known — opens the door for greater and deeper understanding of an issue. When it comes to climate change, across the political spectrum, this one point (that over 97% of experts say humanity is driving climate change) is such a gateway belief.

increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus is significantly and causally associated with an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome threat. In turn, changes in these key beliefs are predictive of increased support for public action. In short, we find that perceived scientific agreement is an important gateway belief, ultimately influencing public responses to climate change.

In other words, want greater support for climate mitigation and adaptation action, a good starting point: educate people about the substantive (overwhelming) climate consensus.

Those resistant to action on climate change have long understood this — no wonder that they attack “97%” and trot out their pet anti-climate science talking head(s).

Sadly, far too many across the English-speaking world do not know this gateway belief.

Recently released research shows that a particularly troubling group is tripping over this gateway:

Only 30 percent of middle-school and 45 percent of high-school science teachers in the U.S. are aware of the fact that nearly all climate scientists are convinced that global warming is caused mostly by human activities.

And, things get worse.

Here’s the kicker: The authors explain that although many science teachers themselves believe that climate change is happening, because most are not aware of the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change many opt to teach “both sides” of the so-called climate debate, mistakenly giving students the impression that the basic facts are still contested, rather than conveying the fact that there is a deep and well-established consensus among climate scientists.

“Both sides” is clearly not solely a problem in traditional media “he says, she says,” all sides should be reported, tradition.

Not surprisingly, political ideology impacts teachers approaches to climate change. Further to the (and the redder the school district, I would suspect), the more likely “controversy” and “both sides” will make its appearance in the science curriculum.

97 percent, however, could well be the most effective tool against this.

one of the few facts that speaks to both conservatives and liberals in a powerful way is information about the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

Purple, blue, or red: knowing 97% “strengthens other important key beliefs that people hold about climate change”.  And, most powerfully, among conservatives.

Knowing about scientific consensus is powerful in other fields.  After all, there is a reason why “4 of 5 dentists agree” is embedded in the social landscape of a generation of TV watchers.  And, sowing doubt is powerful too.

Tobacco companies have long understood the psychological consequences of sowing doubt: As long as people think there is disagreement among the experts, most won’t act.

Sadly, rather than 97% being understood by 97% of Americans, the real figure is about 1% who know this.  E.g., it is far from only school teachers who are tripping at the gateway.  However, teaching teachers “97%” and getting them to teach their students that might be a way get beyond 1% and have fewer Americans tripping on the gateway and falling flat on their face when it comes to climate science knowledge.

We are seeing extraordinary shifts across virtually every technology arena even though, especially in areas of large-fixed infrastructure (buildings, energy systems, etc …), it can sometimes be hard to see the change.

Whether solar pv or wind pricing, the ability to squeeze out efficiency in systems (buildings, vehicles, machines, etc …), or battery capacity per pound, the pace of change in systems commercially available is often hard to comprehend. As the Department of Energy has put it, we are living through a Revolution NOW!

DOE on on LED light bulbs: price nosediving, installations skyrocketing

With the breadth and pace of change in the energy market, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that it is hard even for those pushing innovation to keep up with that pace of change.

“Innovation” is certainly a strong thematic in government energy policy discussions around the world. The announcement of the ‘billionaires’ club’ Breakthrough Energy Initiative provided one of the major ‘side’ elements to the COP21 in Paris.  Associated with that, a pledge by major governments to double energy R&D funding by 2020.

Building on this, four major ‘names’ (Arjun Majumdar (Stanford, first head of ARPA-E), John Deutch (MIT), George Schultz (former Secretary of State), and Norm Augustine (former CEO, Lockheed Martin)) have called for a major private-sector push for energy innovation.

The concept is interesting. In essence, seek to create ten ten-Corporation initiatives groups. Each of these 100 firms would commit to $10M/year in funding, for a total of $10B over a decade, to develop breakthrough energy options through the innovators’ valley of death into broad commercialization and deployment.

each Energy Innovation Entity would be supported by roughly 10 companies, each committing about $10 million a year for 10 years — a “10-10-10” mechanism.

Lots of challenges in this concept. A bit much focused on ‘develop tomorrow’s options’ without mentioning today’s and, well, a concept for business cooperation that seems at odds with most firm’s corporate governance approaches and …  However, still an interesting concept.

Embedded within the discussion, however, an example of just how hard it can be for ‘innovators’ to keep up with the pace of change. The following is the authors’ major example of where large-scale private business investment is required.

Take, for example, advances in battery technology. A battery that costs less than $100 per kilowatt-hour with a lifetime of more than 1,000 cycles would be a game changer for offering affordable and reliable renewable electricity across the world. Today’s lithium ion batteries cost three times more.

Yes, $100 per kWh is generally see as a critical threshold for making EV vehicles truly cost competitive with traditional gasoline vehicles on purchase price (and much less expensive to own).  The problem is found with “today’s” — or at least how one thinks about it.

Batteries have been nose-diving in price.  In the Energy Innovative Entity concept OPED, the authors certainly imply that getting from $300 to $100 is unlikely to occur with lithium ion batteries without some form of intervention like they suggest (note, $1B is a relative pittance in the battery world) and is a stretch goal requiring major intervention and significant time to achieve it.

That, however, does not comport with “today’s” reality.

The Chevy Bolt, being built today, has batteries that General Motors is buying at $145 per kilowatt-hour capacity.  GM released that price information five months ago.  And, GM forecasts achieving $100 per kWh battery pricing by 2022 in the normal course of business.

GM Battery Cost Price Projections

Note that the  $145/kWh price is what GM is paying today.

The actual price today (okay, five months ago — at least) is less than half what the authors cite.

With the rapid advances in battery density and rapidly lowering costs, the GM graphic above is likely pessimistic about what we will actually see in the market place.

It seems plausible that the $100 per kWh battery target will be broken before 2020.

Simply put, the advances in energy systems (and, well, across virtually every field of technology and science) are going so rapidly that even those most concerned with ‘innovation’ are having a hard time keeping up.

Senator Bernie Sanders, amid the Democratic Presidential primary, has had strong words about Republican presidential candidates and climate change.  Amid discussions of the (distorting) influence of interest group financing in politics during the 3 Feb debate with Secretary/Senator Clinton, Sanders said

Do you think there’s a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and that we need to transform our energy system? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system?

Polifact took on the this statement — in a dissected form — and went to rate it.  As an advance warning, they did so in a convoluted manner focused on “fact” that ended up leaving aside “truth”.  Before getting to Politifact, let’s lay out some climate truth:

Hopefully media outlets will more deeply explore how well the candidates’ comments square with climate science going forward, particularly in articles that purport to be “fact-checks.” Splitting the GOP field into “outsider” candidates who reject climate science and “establishment” candidates who accept it might make for a compelling media narrative. But it doesn’t make for an accurate one.

[Read more →]

UPFRONT NOTE:  President Obama’s proposed 21st century clean transportation program, funded by a $10 fee per barrel of oil, would likely have significant positive return on investment: reduced fossil fuel pollution impacts, improved economic activity in areas with mass and other transit investments, reduced economic vulnerability to oil market volatility and price shocks, reduced oil imports, reduced climate impacts, …. Those benefit streams, however, aren’t entering the public discussion …

Cost-Benefit Analysis …

There are those, such as Frank Ackerman, who see cost-benefit analysis as perverting of government regulatory decision-making (especially related to environmental issues). With some strong analysis and reasoning behind them, they argue that the practice should be abandoned. No matter the power of their work, there is a simple truth to deal with: ROI (return on investment) and other business concepts are so embedded in decision-making culture that an abandonment is unlikely to occur.  Thus, the discussion returns to a lesser of evils: what can be done to foster analysis that provides accurate and useful support for decision-making.

When it comes to cost-benefit analysis (environmental, energy, or otherwise), a simple touchstone: evaluate both costs AND benefits.   And, importantly, avoid stove-piping and provide a window on systems implications for a fuller look at those costs and benefits. Regretfully, it is extremely rare to find a serious systems’ look.  Even more abysmally, there is a robust tradition when it comes to energy and environmental issues of looking at “costs” with little to no discussion of benefits. (For example, here, here, here, …)

In a quick-look at the “macroeconomic impacts” of President Obama’s proposed $10 fee on a barrel of oil, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) joined a long legacy of cost-only looks at climate and clean energy policy options.  In its three-page memo to Congress, with substantive large discussion of potential costs (increased gas costs, reduced oil exploration, etc), CRS essentially wrote off that there are potential benefits. A word search provides a quick touchstone:

• Cost: five uses
• Benefit: nilch, nada, zero guest appearances.

Within its “macroeconomic” discussion, CRS lets us know that the fee might reduce domestic oil exploration, might weaken energy security, might cost jobs in the oil and gas sectors, might hurt consumer confidence, might create inflationary pressure, might …, might … might …

Amid all those mights, CRS included one sentence on “benefits”:

Jeff Zients, director of the White House National Economic Council, pointed out that the Clean Transportation System programs would generate transportation infrastructure jobs as a partial offset to the effect of higher petroleum product prices.

As long as CRS was speculating on costs, perhaps speculation on benefits would have been in order.  The proposed 21st Century Clean Transportation Program, including the $10 fee on oil, might:

• Strengthen the economy: foster innovation in oil-dependent products (from cars to plastics) to create more value from every barrel (which, by the way, would increase export competitiveness of US products); create growth around transit paths (as is seen in areas with transit, as real estate values sky rocket near new transit stations); etc…
• Make transportation work better for Americans across the nation, from transit systems to better lighting controls to improved highway traffic (due to more people/goods moving by rail, etc …) with the potential to take a bite out of the 7 billion hours/year Americans waste due to transportation bottlenecks and problems.
• Reduce pollution, with concurrent benefits in reduced health costs and reduced climate risks.

A true systems’ analysis likely would show that a $10 fee on a barrel of oil, with appropriate protections for U.S. producers against foreign competitors, would have a significant set of benefits for Americans that would outweigh (potentially by an order of magnitude in value) the costs.  To arrive a meaningful understanding of that fully-burdened cost-benefit analysis, however, you first have to recognize that there are benefits.  Regretfully, in this case, CRS didn’t take that first step.

Without doing fully burdened cost-benefit analysis, NOAA and University of Colorado Boulder researchers analyzed various electricity portfolios (article) over the coming decade and found that:

Even in a scenario where renewable energy costs more than experts predict, the model produced a system that cuts CO₂ emissions 33 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and delivered electricity at about 8.6 cents per kilowatt hour. By comparison, electricity cost 9.4 cents per kWh in 2012.

Not surprising, this conclusion leads to headlines like Bloomberg’s “Cutting pollution from coal cheaper than you think“.  As discussed below, however, the study team seems to understate the real case — with a richer study perhaps leading to a title “Cutting pollution from coal more profitable than we realized”.

As to the study, this team modeled an integrated national system — leveraging regional differences for renewables based on high-fidelity weather records — to foster a designed grid to reduce the need for backup generation to cover intermittencies. The grid buildout, in their model, relies heavily on HVDC (high-voltage, direct current) power lines which would enable moving electricity long distances with minimal transmission losses.

Alexander MacDonald, co-lead author and recently retired director of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), compared the idea of a HVDC grid with the interstate highway system which transformed the U.S. economy in the 1950s.

“With an ‘interstate for electrons’, renewable energy could be delivered anywhere in the country while emissions plummet,” he said. “An HVDC grid would create a national electricity market in which all types of generation, including low-carbon sources, compete on a cost basis. The surprise was how dominant wind and solar could be.”

The modeling has interesting (powerful, even) results.

“Our research shows a transition to a reliable, low-carbon, electrical generation and transmission system can be accomplished with commercially available technology and within 15 years,” said MacDonald …

And, it is getting praised

“This study pushes the envelope,” said Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson, who commented on the findings in an editorial he wrote for  the journal Nature Climate Change. “It shows that intermittent renewables plus transmission can eliminate most fossil-fuel electricity while matching power demand at lower cost than a fossil fuel-based grid

The team found that

“The United States could slash greenhouse gas emissions from power production by up to 78 percent below 1990 levels within 15 years while meeting increased demand”

… and at a price similar to (if not below) currently delivered electricity prices.

That is a powerful result …

Yet, the analysis looks to undermine that power: there is no discussion of all of the value streams that come from driving down carbon emissions in the electricity system. Here are just a few direct payoffs for the U.S. economy through moving toward a cleaner electricity grid.

• Employment (Jobs! JOBS! JOBS!!!) is higher with renewable energy, per kilowatt hour, than traditional fossil fuels: building wind turbines, installing solar panels, and, with efficiency, insulating homes (and manufacturing that insulation), etc …
• Railroad capacity to move goods and people as lower coal movements reduce bottlenecks.
• Reduced pollution leading to higher productivity (fewer lost work days due to asthma attacks).
• Etc …

And, of course, that ‘oh by the way’ value from reduced climate risks.

This looks to an important study — showing that an accelerated move to a clean electricity grid is viable at essentially low cost.  Regretfully, by what looks to be a stove-piped analysis solely within the electricity market, the analysis fails to highlight a simple truth: this transition would create tremendous value — not just be cost neutral — while lowering risk.

[Read more →]

Storms,

  Tides, and

     Sea Level Rise …

Sadly, this rolls off the tongue.

Sadly, because is a rather terrifying presage of the world that we are moving into.

This guest post comes from John Englander, one of the most prescient voices as to the implications of sea level rise and the ever-increasing imperative to act to adapt to the changes that are coming — no matter how much climate mitigation we take. [note: that there will be worsening implications from climate change, no matter what we do, is not a reason not to work (hard, urgently, passionately) for mitigation. We might have a say as to how fast and how bad climate change impacts humanity and ecosystems even if it is well past time to prevent significant damage from happening.)

‘Jonas’ (also known as: the Blizzard of 2016, and “snowzilla”) was just one more unusual weather event that will go down in the ‘record books.’ What made this special was how the amount of moisture in the air and the unusual temperatures and pressure systems aligned for massive snow. Of course, heavy snow does not cause coastal flooding.

Yet the severe coastal flooding from the Carolinas up to Massachusetts illustrates the dark magic when the flooding forces of storms, tides and sea level rise combine. Jonas was not even hurricane force winds, something we associate with severe coastal damage. There were strong winds, but by themselves they would not create this kind of coastal flooding.

But Jonas did hit at the monthly full moon, when tides are more extreme.  Plus we are in the higher phase of the 18.6 year tide cycle, raising water heights even higher this year. It is the invisible way that the timing of the wave heights and the tide cycle just happen to hit that determines whether flooding will be bad or not. For example, when Jonas hit Annapolis this weekend, the tide was not at the high point of the daily cycle. When the peak of the storm hit farther up the coast the damage was much worse, because it hit at high tide.

Over the last century, sea level in the area of the mid Atlantic east coast of the United States has risen approximately 14 inches. That will not reverse for at least a thousand years, until such time as the planet’s temperature falls to the point where the glaciers and ice sheets return to growth mode. Indeed the rate of sea level rise is now increasing dramatically.

In fact our problem with sea level rise is almost entirely related to the rate of the rise. Sea level keeps inching higher and higher, as the glaciers and ice sheets in the polar regions continue to melt due to record levels of heat. For example, Arctic temperatures this month were as much as 50 degrees F above normal.

“Eventually” sea level will be tens of feet higher than now. The question is how quickly.  That depends on the amount of heat we add to the oceans and some subtle structural dynamics in Antarctica that cannot yet be determined.

I like to use the rhyming phrase “storms, tides, and sea level rise” to help identify how this powerful synergy between those three forces will keep breaking records over the coming decades. When we see streets flooding, there is a tendency to think of it as having a single cause. Yet there can be various factors that contribute to flooding:

• heavy rainfall
• storm surge – a bulge in ocean height driven by wind or low barometric pressure
• different levels of ‘high tide’ which cycles primarily due to the position of the planets, peaking almost twice daily, with extra height at the full and new moon according to the 28 day lunar cycle.
• sea level — the base ocean level at low tide that primarily reflects the amount of ice on land and any overall change in ocean heat content. On a regional level, sea level can also be affected by land subsidence, a drop in its elevation due to compaction, plate tectonics, extraction of groundwater or petroleum.

Erosion is a different phenomenon, though it often also gets lumped in with these types of flooding. Primarily erosion at the beach is due to direct wave action driven by local or distant storms, OR it is due to the long term removal of sand by the normal currents along the coast, but often disturbed by artificial structures like jetties and inlets.  To a considerable degree, what we think of as erosion is a natural inevitable process as ocean currents continue to sculpt shorelines in a very dynamic manner.

The flooding this weekend from Jonas is a powerful reminder how storms, extreme tides, and sea level rise are a swirling dynamic. What we see is the severe flooding. Almost everyone associates the flooding with the record storm. They do not notice how much the subtle planetary-driven tide cycle contributes. It is also easy to overlook how the unstoppable long term rising sea will keep making these events worse and worse.

The sooner we plan and adapt to rising sea level, the better communities will be prepared for these temporary flood events too.  Resiliency planning for higher ocean levels is a good investment for coastal interests everywhere. That’s the business case we make at The Rising Seas Group. Planning ahead for inevitable higher sea level is a good investment. Any sailor knows that you look out to the horizon to know the weather that is headed your way.

We can plan and adapt to much higher sea level that is now on the horizon.  Indeed we must. For example, I like to use a “9-box matrix” which allows different stakeholder groups to look at their own Short-Medium-Long time perspectives, against Low-Moderate-Worst case projections for sea level rise for a particular geographic area. With that and a vulnerability assessment, the next step is to plan adaptation.

Events like Jonas should remind everyone with coastal interests that even modest storm surge can have surprising impact. We are at the early phase of a very long term trend, an ever-rising sea level — something not witnessed in human history.

We can ADAPT. To do that we must PLAN. To do that, we must UNDERSTAND where things are headed.

Residents of Washington, DC are used to jokes about metaphorical hot air, humidity, and the swampy history of their city. But there’s something they may not know about the District: it’s overrun with methane, which sometimes makes manhole covers explode.

Three Street View cars took measurements of nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, black carbon, particulate matter, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) — air pollutants which can affect human health or climate change. …

There are many joys of gardening, not least of which is harvesting food feet from your front door to dine on just minutes or hours later.

It is 3 January 2016.

Here is the lettuce that I just harvested from my garden — wild lettuce from plants we had dined off of last spring and then in the fall — and for which I will be making a salad dressing shortly.

DC-area lettuce harvested 3 Jan 2016 (c) A Siegel

Lettuce growing in DC-area garden. late Dec 2015

To be clear, this is healthy (even beautiful) lettuce — three different varieties — that we will all enjoy eating.

We will all enjoy, however, with serious ill-ease.

Every one of us know that this should not happen. We should not be eating lettuce from the garden in January.

I live with a climate change(d) backyard.

We live in a climate change(d) world.

[Read more →]

Simply put, amid weather extremes occurring within a climate change(d) world, too many are not connecting the dots as to the relationship between climate change and the hottest year on record/North Pole warmth/Mississippi flooding/flowers in a DC garden on New Year’s day/…. This is a repost of a 2011 piece (that has a rich 290 comment discusion thread).  Some recent discussions sparked a  reread and reconsideration of the post and the comments. Sadly, as per reposting below, it is sadly too relevant today.

As the hottest year in recorded history closes (surpassing 2014’s record and with 2016 being predicted to being even hotter) with a series of extreme(ly unusuable, record-breaking) weather events/patterns, it is astounding how rarely media outlets & meteorologists connect these to climate change (an example from my breakfast table: this recent Washington Post front page story on December’s heat).While fully capable of doing so, “the media” does not treat climate change as seriously as it/they did Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress. Some do this out of ignorance (not making the connections or thinking ‘oh, everyone knows what is going on, why bother or I wrote about climate last month, there is no reason to repeat things over again) and some do this from direct climate-science denial.  No matter what the ’cause’, the reality is that this is a disservice to public understanding and public discourse of what likely is the defining public policy issue for the century (if not centuries) to come.

To be clear, as discussed below, it would be incorrect to state bluntly: “Climate change has caused X or Y extreme weather event”.  However, it is simply as (actually, arguably more) erroneous  — without some serious science behind it — to assert the reverse. The truth, in situation after situation, is that climate change is impacting (has a role) in extreme weather situation after weather event. Simply put, in our climate change(d) world, every square inch of the earth and every cubic centimeter of the atmosphere has been impacted by humanity.  “Weather” is not occurring, any longer, outside a context of climate change.

The absence of climate change from media examinations of weather extremes has moved past potentially understandable oversight to, increasingly, what might be referred to as ‘journalistic malfeasance’.  Editors and journalists should read and consider seriously these New Year’s resolutions for reporting on climate.

In simple truth, it has now become impossible to discuss responsibly weather patterns and events without putting it in the context of climate change (climate disruption / global warming). As per Bill McKibben’s Eaarth and the scientific move to the term Antropocene era, we have fundamentally altered the planetary system.     Thus, while it is absolutely true that it remains (and likely will remain) impossible to say “X” event occurred “because of” global warming, it is also true that global warming is now a factor (among many other factors) that impact weather events — all weather events.

[Read more →]

This guest post from Dean Baker provides a different perspective on inadequate media discussion and coverage of climate change issues.  In short, Dean reminds us that journalists do know how to dig to the bottom of a story and how to pressure politicians.  He asks media outlets and journalists to treat climate change with, at least, the serious energy expended on making (in)famous a certain blue dress.

The Washington Post ran a column last week that blamed the baby boom generation for global warming. Even for the Post this was extraordinarily low. This is not an issue of defending my generation; it is a question of how bad policy persists. And the answer puts the blame far more on media outlets like the Washington Post than people born in the two decades after World War II.

Most people don’t spend their days enmeshed in policy issues; they have jobs and lives. They rely on the media to let them know what is important. Unfortunately, this has generally not meant much coverage of global warming. The media have largely treated global warming as sort of a sidebar of interest to a narrow clientele, kind of like sailboat races.

Contrast the coverage of global warming with the near wall-to-wall coverage of Ebola back in the fall of 2014, a disease that infected a total of three people in the United States. Or, take the current coverage of ISIS. If we envision a worst case scenario for ISIS, there are probably several thousand times as many lives being put at risk by global warming than will ever be threatened by ISIS.

We got an excellent display of the media’s ability to ignore global warming in the two presidential debates that took place immediately after the Paris climate talks. There was not a single question on global warming in either party’s debate.

Part of the reason for ignoring the issue likely stems from the fact that one party insists that global warming is not happening, or at least that humans are not causing it. It is a basic tenet of the Republican Party that global warming is not an area for public policy.

As a result, all of the leading candidates for the party’s presidential nomination, as well as the leadership in the House and Senate, deny knowing anything about it. “I am not a scientist” is now rivaling the pledge of allegiance as an oath taken by Republican Party leaders.

But Republican denials of global warming don’t put the issue in dispute any more than their refusal to accept arithmetic would make addition a debatable topic. A responsible press would treat these denials as the scandal they are.

[Read more →]