| Open challenge to long-wrong Michael Lynch, who predicted back in 1996 "real oil prices FLAT for the next two decades": I'll take your bet on $30 oil. Posted: 26 Aug 2009 10:11 AM PDT ![peak_oil2.jpg]()
A guy who has been wrong on oil prices longer than most has managed to convince the New York Times to give him some of their precious op-ed space to issue yet another sure-to-be-wrong prediction. That would be energy consultant Michael Lynch, with his remarkably content-free piece, " 'Peak Oil' Is a Waste of Energy," asserting: Oil remains abundant, and the price will likely come down closer to the historical level of $30 a barrel as new supplies come forward….
Here's my bet to Lynch. Let's take the average price of oil from 2010 to 2015. For every $1 a barrel it is below $40, I'll pay you $200, if you pay me a mere $100 for every $1 a barrel it is above $40. That should be a no-brainer since I am giving him 2-to-1 and spotting him $10 a barrel off of what he says the right price is. I wasn't going to post on this since I have blogged endlessly on the painfully obvious reality that we are at or near the peak (see "Peak Oil? Bring it on!"). It is so obvious that the International Energy Agency, which until recently had been a bastion of relatively staid and conservative and hence useless energy prognostication, has begun desperately trying to warn people of what is happening — see World's top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: "We have to leave oil before oil leaves us." Heck, half of the most cautious "show me the money" people in the entire energy business agree (see "Half of oil & gas CFOs say we are peaking"). But one of the congressional staffers who reads this blog sent me something I didn't know existed — an online transcript of a 1996 Congressional hearing "U.S. energy outlook and implications for energy R&D : hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, March 14, 1996″ (hard to read HTML here, massive PDF here). I was Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, at DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the House GOP were basically putting me on trial for - Predicting that oil prices were going to rise in the future because of our growing reliance on oil from unstable regions and
- Using that as an argument for why we needed to dramatically increase funding for clean energy R&D.
That prediction and argument were published at length the next month in my Atlantic Monthly piece (coauthored with Deputy Secretary Charles Curtis), "Mideast oil forever: Congressional budget-cutters threaten to end America's leadership in new energy technologies that could generate hundreds of thousands of high-wage jobs, reduce damage to the environment, and limit our costly, dangerous dependency on oil from the unstable Persian Gulf region" (see also here). And who did the Republicans drag in as their witness to rebut me — one "Michael C. Lynch, Research Affiliate, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Even back then, in the good old days of $17 oil (1995 average nominal price or $24 in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars), Lynch was predicting flat oil prices for decades:
In previous work, I have shown that past oil market forecasts were biased towards rising prices and declining non-OPEC production. Correcting for the supply pessimism leaves a forecast in which oil markets remain in surplus over the long-term, suggesting that oil prices will remain weak for the indefinite future…. Conclusions: Prices are much more likely to be weak than strong…. … the ongoing technological revolution in the industry, combined with managerial improvements and a more friendly fiscal environment in oil exporting countries, will keep real oil prices flat for the next two decades. … a flat oil price forecast appears to be much more consistent with historical behavior than the rising price forecasts of DOE and the lEA. A declining price, or flat at a lower level, would hardly be unrealistic.
Not clear how an energy consultant can keep making the same predictions with his track record. Not clear just how wrong your past predictions have to be before the NYT won't publish your op-ed where you repeat the same exact wrong predictions. For the record, here is in fact what happened in the decade after Lynch's prediction of flat real prices: 
Real prices more than double in the subsequent decade. Lynch's analytical worldview is that "a flat oil price forecast appears to be much more consistent with historical behavior." Well, the future is just like the past, until, of course, it isn't. We aren't making more oil, we are, however, consuming more and more. For completeness sake, and with apologies to my regular readers, as Dr. Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently explained: Dr. Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.
The IEA's work makes clear that for oil to stay significantly below $200 a barrel (and U.S. gasoline to be significantly below $5 a gallon) by 2020 would take a miracle — or rather 6 miracles see "Science/IEA: World oil crunch looming? Not if we can find six Saudi Arabias!" See also "Merrill: Non-OPEC production has likely peaked, oil output could fall by 30 million bpd by 2015," which noted, Steep falls in oil production means the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia's production every two years, Merrill Lynch said in a research report.
So how about that bet? Michael Lynch? Anyone? One final note: The conservatives in Congress thwarted efforts to ramp up clean energy R&D in the 1990s, and the situation has become so dire now, that increased R&D, while useful, is quite secondary to the urgent need to massively deploy clean energy technology, as Obama and Congress have done in the stimulus and the major fuel economy deal earlier this year, and as they hope to do in the climate and clean energy bill. |
| Energy and Global Warming News for August 26: Senators embark on climate change tours of Arctic; an oil field powered by concentrated solar power? Posted: 26 Aug 2009 08:41 AM PDT 
Alaska senator hosting climate-change tour ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Sen. Mark Begich says he'll host four other senators on a "climate change" tour this weekend in Alaska.
The senators will see retreating glaciers, forests damaged by invasive species, and drying wetlands. They'll also visit the North Slope to see the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. The senators are Barbara Boxer of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Three of the senators are members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Boxer is the chair. Begich recently introduced a package of seven bills dealing with the impacts of climate change in America's Arctic.
A Solar-Powered Oil Field?
BrightSource Energy has broken ground on a 29-megawatt solar steam plant at a Chevron oil field in Coalinga, Calif.
The 100-acre project's 7,000 mirrors will focus sunlight on a water-filled boiler that sits atop a 323-foot tower to produce hot, high-pressure steam.
For BrightSource, which has signed contracts to supply 2,610 megawatts of solar electricity to California utilities, the Chevron deal is a chance to scale up its technology –- the company so far has only built a six-megawatt demonstration power plant in Israel -– and explore new applications for its technology. In a conventional solar power plant, the steam drives a turbine to generate electricity. In this case, the steam will be injected into oil wells to enhance production by heating thick petroleum so it flows more freely. Oil companies typically rely on steam generated by natural gas or other fossil fuels to maximize oil recovery in places like the oil patch in California's Fresno and Kern counties, where the petroleum is heavy and gooey.
How delightful — using solar energy to extract more oil! Chevron is an investor in BrightSource, a solar power plant builder based in Oakland, Calif., and solar-powered oil extraction offers the oil giant an opportunity to reduce its carbon footprint while gaining a hedge against volatile natural gas prices. For BrightSource, which has signed contracts to supply 2,610 megawatts of solar electricity to California utilities, the Chevron deal is a chance to scale up its technology –- the company so far has only built a six-megawatt demonstration power plant in Israel -– and explore new applications for its technology.
"It's potentially a very lucrative market for us," said Keely Wachs, BrightSource's senior director of corporate communications….
Two BrightSource competitors, Ausra and eSolar, are also eyeing the oil industry as a potential market for solar steam. Ausra, based in Palo Alto, Calif., last year flipped the switch on a five-megawatt demonstration solar power plant outside Bakersfield, Calif., and the company's chief executive, Robert Fishman, said he had held discussions with oil producers about deploying the company's technology.
UN's Ban Ki Moon to see climate change effects on North Pole trip UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is to visit a Norwegian island deep inside the Arctic Circle, near the North Pole, to see firsthand the effects of climate change, his spokeswoman said.… He will receive "the latest update on issues related to the thinning ice and make his way to the polar ice rim," he said.
After his visit, Ban is scheduled to head to Geneva to participate on September 3 in the third World Climate Conference, organized by the UN's World Meteorological Organization. The UN chief, who has made fighting climate change one of his top priorities as head of the international organization, will host a high-level conference on the issue in New York on September 22, ahead of the annual General Assembly debate, scheduled for September 23-26.
U.K. Renewable Energy Project Sees Barrage of Power and Critics The United Kingdom is weighing a single project that could carry it a long way toward a tough target: its commitment to generate about 35 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. On paper, at least, what is called the Severn Barrage will deliver a huge pulse of juice, roughly 5 percent of the nation's requirements. And it would do that without production of greenhouse gases or related pollution. Moreover, it uses Britain's largest untapped source of power, the tidal energy of the sea along Britain's 11,000 miles of coastline. It would make the United Kingdom the leader of a growing worldwide effort to harness tidal and wave power.… Several variations of how to tap this energy are under study. The biggest — and most favored by the government — is a 10-mile-long dam or barrage that would stretch across the mouth of the estuary between Cardiff in Wales and Weston-Super-Mare in England. Tides passing through its 240 turbines would generate 8.6 gigawatts of electricity, roughly the equivalent output of eight large coal-fired power plants.
India Urges Rich Countries to Call Its Climate Change 'Bluff' Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) — India's environment minister urged the world's developed countries to call his nation's 'bluff' and sign on to steeper cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.
India and China would have to "respond very positively" if rich nations such as the U.S. agreed to a goal of cutting emissions 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, Jairam Ramesh said in an interview yesterday in Beijing, where he met with Xie Zhenhua, China's top climate-change negotiator.
…
Both India and China want an agreement at Copenhagen and shouldn't be viewed as a "negative or obstructionist force," Ramesh said. "Both of us were of the view that we should be part of the solution," Ramesh said. "We want an agreement in Copenhagen." India and China are looking for developed countries to share more carbon-reducing technologies with poorer nations and help finance projects, Ramesh said. "For us, climate change is not just an environmental issue, for us, climate change is a development issue," he said.
Favorable Political Winds Blow E.U. Turbine Producers to the U.S. COPENHAGEN — It was a scene familiar to many a Western labor activist: manufacturing workers in a developed country protesting in vain the outsourcing of their jobs overseas. Earlier this month, workers barricaded themselves in Vestas Wind Systems' wind turbine blade factory on Britain's Isle of Wight to try to convince the company not to shut down the plant, dismiss 425 workers and move production to another country. The only unusual part of the story was that the outsourcing location was not a Third World country. The blade manufacturing jobs were headed toward the United States. The global wind power industry sees it as its most lucrative future market.
Gas Capacity Is an Issue Natural-gas prices have tumbled in recent weeks as investors worried that the industry is about to run out of storage.
But a new government report is expected to show there is slightly more storage capacity available than many investors believe.
The report by the Energy Information Administration, to be issued in the next few days, will show storage capacity rose by 100 billion cubic feet or more in the past year, according to EIA economist Jose Villar. That compares with an estimate by Credit Suisse for 86 billion cubic feet.
Climate change law to bring teeth to emissions mandates China's proposed climate change legislation will give the country more negotiating power in the upcoming international climate change treaty talks, and also make emissions control mandated by law, environmental experts say. China is considering putting climate legislation on its legislative agenda, according to a draft resolution on climate change, which has been submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC). "China will draw up new laws and regulations to provide a legal basis for combating climate change," said Wang Guangtao, director of the NPC's environment and resource protection committee. The resolution shows good coordination between the government and legislative body in advance of the Copenhagen meeting, said Yang Fuqiang, director of global climate change solutions at environmental group WWF. "Once the government signs the new treaty, the NPC will ratify it," he said.
Wyoming's Grousing About Wind Power Wind power's future in Wyoming faces a couple of hurdles—a small bird and a big governor.
First, Gov. Dave Freudenthal. He's served notice that while the wind blows hard across the wide-open state of Wyoming, it's not free for the taking. In a sharp speech before 600 industry executives, lawmakers, and conservationists earlier this month at Wind Symposium, he threw down a gauntlet .
…
"The fact that Al Gore likes wind energy is great," the governor said, "but at the end of the day, we cannot end up with one industry compromising the economy of this state."
Saudi Blasts American Energy Policy The question of American "energy independence" clearly rankles officials in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest exporter of crude oil, who seem increasingly puzzled by the energy policy of the United States, the world's biggest oil consumer. In a short and strongly-worded essay in Foreign Policy magazine, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former ambassador to the United States and a nephew to King Abdullah, said that for American politicians, invoking energy independence "is now as essential as baby-kissing," and accuses them of "demagoguery." All the talk about energy independence, Mr. al-Faisal said, is "political posturing at its worst — a concept that is unrealistic, misguided, and ultimately harmful to energy-producing and consuming countries alike."
[What? Saudi Arabia doesn't want to lose its largest customer? How very puzzling indeed.] Australian Senate Passes Renewable Energy Target Bill Australia's upper house has passed a climate change bill, effectively mandating a renewables portfolio standard that should establish a 20% contribution to electricity production from renewables by 2020. The passage of the Rudd government-backed bill through the Senate came just days after parliament had rejected a separate, even more ambitious, climate change bill based on emissions trading. Nonetheless, the bill quadruples the renewable energy target set by the previous government in 2001.
Sweden to U.S.: Please Bring Climate Change Deal to Copenhagen Washington might be preoccupied with health care and CIA interrogation techniques, but Europe is still counting on Congress and the Obama administration to help forge a global climate change treaty by year's end.… "You shouldn't underestimate the expectations [President Barack Obama] has created in the world," Carlgren said. "He's created huge expectations. That is also something to take into account as we move toward Copenhagen … We expect a comprehensive agreement." The meeting is sponsored by the United Nations. During the presidential race last year, Obama famously remarked that his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Since taking office, however, his aides have sought to lower foreign governments' expectations on climate talks – much to some allies' frustration. "My Chinese counterpart … always uses America as an excuse not to move ahead," Carlgren said. He suggested that "one of the best tools America has in its hand" to encourage China to join in "is to adopt a cap and trade system."
|
| Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), a champion of the environment and clean energy, dies at age 77 Posted: 26 Aug 2009 07:42 AM PDT 
Kennedy, the last surviving brother in a unique American political dynasty and one of the most influential senators in history, died late Tuesday night at his summer home on Cape Cod after a 15-month battle with brain cancer. He was 77.
He was a great champion of progressive causes, and his death is a great loss, particularly for health care reform. You can read read his staggering list of accomplishments here. His legacy on "Protecting the Environment and Promoting Energy Efficiency" is below. How many Senators would even mention "energy efficiency" among their achievements?
Holding Oil Companies Accountable
During consideration of a 1975 tax cut proposal, Kennedy introduced a provision targeting the oil depletion allowance, which since 1926 had enabled oil producers to exclude 22 percent of their revenues from any taxes. Kennedy's initiative passed overwhelmingly, trimming the allowance for independent producers and ending it for the major oil companies. Raising Fuel Economy Standards
Senator Kennedy has a long and distinguished record supporting clean renewable sources of energy and reducing the nation's reliance on fossil fuels. More than 30 years ago he cosponsored the first law to establish fuel economy standards. And in 2007, he supported a law which increased fuel economy standards, which is essential to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Promoting Energy Research and Development
In 2007, Senator Kennedy's "America COMPETES Act" was passed by both chambers of Congress and sent to the White House to become law. That bill established an Advanced Research Projects Authority at the Department of Energy to be the focal point of federal efforts to support breakthrough research on new clean energy technologies. In 2009, Senator Kennedy urged that funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act be used to build a wind blade technology testing facility in Massachusetts, and in May 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that $25 million of such funds will be available for the project at the Autoport in Charlestown. Improving Energy Efficiency
Senator Kennedy was a strong proponent of increasing energy efficiency, which is an essential part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He was a long time supporter of programs like the weatherization assistance program and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps those most in need reduce their energy bills by improving home energy efficiency.
Here are more of his efforts to maintain high environmental standards: Kennedy Fought to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Address Global Warming. During consideration of the FY 2002 Budget Resolution, Senator Kennedy cosponsored an amendment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address concerns related to global climate change. The amendment sought to promote voluntary programs for reducing emissions in the near term. In addition, Senator Kennedy's amendment included provisions designed to assist developing countries address the danger of global warming – specifically increased funding to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the amendment provided additional funding for programs that assist U.S. businesses willing to export clean energy technologies to developing nations. Kennedy Criticized the Administration's Proposed Changes to the Clean Air Act. Senator Kennedy was a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's efforts to essentially repeal the "New Source Review" section of the Clean Air Act. The New Source Review provision requires industrial plants to install modern pollution control mechanisms when expanding or upgrading their old facilities. This standard has helped reduce smog- and soot-forming pollution by hundreds of thousands of tons each year. President Bush's proposal eliminated this requirement, significantly increasing the probability of higher pollution levels and endangering the lives of millions of children, mothers, and elderly persons. Senator Kennedy strongly supported an amendment that would have delayed implementation of the new rule until a study was completed to determine its effect on air pollution and public health. The amendment failed on a party-line vote. Kennedy Fought for Additional Personnel to Enforce Environmental Regulations. After a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report detailed the Agency's substandard efforts to enforce the Clean Water Act, Senator Kennedy cosponsored an amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations Act to reverse proposed cuts in the EPA enforcement staff. The amendment provided additional funding to maintain personnel levels and prevent layoffs to enforcement officers. The failure of the EPA to address a significant number of environmental violations exposed the negligence of cutting enforcement personnel. Senator Kennedy's amendment maintained the previous year's officer level. Kennedy Opposed the Permanent Nuclear Waste Storage Facility at Yucca Mountain. Senator Kennedy is a strong opponent of the plan to create a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The potential for groundwater contamination from the site is yet to be determined, and the transfer of nuclear materials to Nevada from almost every state in the nation raises serious safety concerns. In addition, in March 2005, the Department of Energy admitted that falsified documents were used to ensure the credibility and safety of operations at Yucca Mountain. Until questions are resolved that will guarantee the health of both the public and the environment, it is irresponsible to approve a permanent storage site for nuclear waste.
And his efforts to "Supporting the Improving Mass Transit and Reducing Pollution and Congestion": Kennedy Cosponsored Legislation to Increase Funding for AmtrakSenator Kennedy cosponsored legislation to increase funding for passenger rail service in the United States. Amtrak is a vital component to the country's transportation infrastructure, especially in the Northeast. Despite its importance, the Administration over the last three years has severely underfunded the passenger rail system, forcing it to delay critical capital investments. In his budget for FY 2006, President Bush proposed to eliminate all funding for Amtrak, hoping to force it into bankruptcy and shift the bill for passenger rail to state governments. Senator Kennedy's bipartisan amendment would have restored the subsidy for Amtrak, ensuring service for the next fiscal year. Kennedy sponsored a similar amendment in 2003, which allowed Amtrak to maintain critical services during 2004. Kennedy Fought for Increased Mass Transit Benefits for Commuters During consideration of the highway bill, Senator Kennedy was a key cosponsor of an amendment that increased the monthly amount of the employer-based federal mass transit tax benefit from $105 to $200. This puts the monthly benefit on par with the current federal parking benefit. The amendment was modeled after the Commuter Benefits Equity Act, of which Senator Kennedy is a cosponsor, and could help up to 194,000 T commuters in and around Boston. Encouraging the use of mass transit will help reduce traffic congestion and lower the cost of commuting, especially important at a time of escalating energy prices. Kennedy's amendment was included in the highway conference report, which was signed into law by the President. Kennedy Secured Record Transportation Funding in Highway Bill In 2005, Senator Kennedy successfully secured record transportation funding in the Transportation Equity Act, also known as the highway bill. Massachusetts will receive $3.658 billion for highways for the next six years – a $568 million increase over the last highway measure signed into law. In addition, the bill includes a substantial increase in funding for mass transit priorities in the state. The funds contained in the highway bill are critical to improving infrastructure in Massachusetts and reducing traffic congestion for the state's commuters.
And his efforts to protect our oceans and land: Kennedy Supported Additional Funding to Protect Water Resources. In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Act was enacted to provide funding to states for water pollution prevention and clean-up. Despite substantial progress in protecting and improving water quality in the United States, serious pollution problems remain. A 2002 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study disclosed a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected water funding needs over the next 20 years. Payments from the Federal Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund are essential to protecting vital water resources, wildlife and the public health in the U.S. To ensure adequate funding for the account, Senator Kennedy introduced an amendment to the FY 2006 Budget Resolution that expressed support for increasing water pollution payments to states. Kennedy Fought to Cleanup Brownfields Sites and Revitalize Local Communities. In 2001, Senator Kennedy was a lead sponsor of the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, which authorized funds for assessment and cleanup of "brownfields" sites. Brownfields are former industrial sites that at one time were determined unsuitable for development because of environmental contamination. Today however, these sites are being cleaned up and redeveloped, enhancing the environment, creating jobs and expanding economic development in communities across the country. Massachusetts alone has identified over 7,000 such sites in the state. With over 500,000 brownfields sites in the United States, Senator Kennedy's legislation provided important grants and revolving loans to states and local governments to inventory, assess, and cleanup contaminated sites. Unfortunately, despite its ability to bring economic vitality to communities throughout the country, the Administration's budget for FY 2006 incorporated large cuts in the program. - Massachusetts Received Millions of Dollars to Clean Up Brownfields Sites. The year following passage of Senator Kennedy's Brownfields revitalization bill, eleven communities in Massachusetts were selected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to receive federal grants for their Brownfield Assessment Demonstration Pilot programs. The total of more than $3.4 million helped these communities establish new methods of assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment.
Kennedy Fought to Prevent Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) represents one of the last remaining protected wilderness areas in the country, and is home to a variety of unique wildlife. The FY 2004 Budget Resolution contained language allowing energy drilling in ANWR, opening the environmentally protected area to development. Senator Kennedy introduced an amendment to eliminate the language and prevent the consideration of drilling in the refuge. Energy Department forecasts predict that, if retrieved all at once, the refuge would produce at most six months worth of American oil, and would not start flowing until 2013. This is a fruitless effort that would convert this spectacular ecosystem into nothing more than an oilfield, and damage the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for future generations. - Kennedy Supported an Amendment to Prevent Drilling in ANWR During consideration of the FY 2006 Budget Resolution, Senator Kennedy strongly supported an amendment to remove language that opened the door for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In recent years, the Senate has voted down attempts to allow drilling in ANWR, which would destroy one of the last remaining wilderness areas in the country. Drilling would do little to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and would have almost no impact on energy prices. Although the amendment was defeated, Kennedy will continue the fight to ensure this environmentally sensitive area remains free from oil drilling.
- Kennedy Helped Defeat Drilling in ANWR Senator Kennedy and his colleagues were successful in defeating a provision from the Defense Department Appropriations bill that would have allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Republican leaders attempted to include the special interest provision in the Defense bill, but it was removed after being determined unrelated to the underlying measure.
Kennedy Supported the Goals of National Oceans Week. Oceans contribute vitally to the nation's economy, the quality of the environment, and the health of the population. Providing oxygen to breath, food to eat, and a wealth of natural resources, these waters play a critical role in sustaining life on earth. As a result, the United States has a responsibility to promote and practice stewardship of the ocean. In 2003, Senator Kennedy cosponsored a resolution to designate the week of June 9, 2003, as National Oceans Week, and urged the country to exercise programs to advance ocean literacy and education. Kennedy Worked to Expand Ocean Research and Apply it to Human Health In 2004, Senator Kennedy cosponsored legislation to establish a federal research program examining ocean resources and their application to human health. The bill would have created the Oceans and Human Health Program at the Department of Commerce, and directed the Department to establish an outreach effort with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This coordination would help merge oceanographers and biomedical researchers to collaborate on marine research and its impact on human health. Senator Kennedy's legislation passed in the Senate, but stalled in the House of Representatives. Kennedy Cosponsored Legislation to Protect Coastal Lands and Wetlands In 2003, Senator Kennedy introduced legislation to help preserve America's coasts and wetlands, and protect these unspoiled areas from development. The bipartisan bill would have provided grant funding to states and non-governmental organizations for land conservation at the state and local level. Funding would have been targeted to protect important coastal and wetland areas with significant conservation, recreation, and ecological value. The program would have supported coordination between private organizations and federal, state, and local governments for land acquisition and protection. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act failed to reach the floor for consideration.
And finally, you can see his major votes in recent years on energy, oil, and the environment here. They say no one is indispensable, but some are irreplaceable. Ted Kennedy was both. |
| "Global Warming Is A Medical Emergency": Hellish heatwaves to harm health of millions Posted: 26 Aug 2009 06:44 AM PDT ![]( "southeast-heatwaves-usgcrp")
We're starting to see more and more work on the health impacts of global warming (see "The Lancet's landmark Health Commission: "Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century" and "Climate change helps spread dengue fever in 28 states"). One source of those impacts, hellish heat waves, will become commonplace in the coming decades if we don't reverse greenhouse gas emissions trends sharply and soon, as the figure above makes clear (see "Definitive NOAA-led report warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn't the worst case, it's business as usual!"). By 2090, it'll be above 90°F some 120 days a year in Kansas — more than the entire summer. Much of Florida and Texas will be above 90°F for half the year. These won't be called heat waves anymore. It'll just be the "normal" climate. Based on two recent studies: By century's end, extreme temperatures of up to 122°F would threaten most of the central, southern, and western U.S. Even worse, Houston and Washington, DC could experience temperatures exceeding 98°F for some 60 days a year. Much of Arizona would be subjected to temperatures of 105°F or more for 98 days out of the year–14 full weeks. Coincidentally, the WSJ reports today, "Austin on Monday recorded its 64th day of 100-plus degree weather since June 1." That won't be news at all in a few decades on our current emissions path. The Hadley Center notes one related impact, "By the 2090s close to one-fifth of the world's population will be exposed to ozone levels well above the World Health Organization recommended safe-health level." The rest of this post is a reposted guest blog from Brad Johnson on a new Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) report, "More Extreme Heat Waves: Global Warming's Wake Up Call":
As the debate over rising health care costs reaches a fever pitch, PSR warns that "global warming is a medical emergency." In a press teleconference unveiling a new report on the human cost of increased heat waves, PSR executive director Peter Wilk, M.D. described global warming as "one of the gravest health emergencies facing humanity today": Global warming is one of the gravest health emergencies facing humanity today. It's life threatening, it's affecting us now, and if we don't take bold and effective action, it could dramatically affect how we life on earth.
"More Extreme Heat Waves: Global Warming's Wake Up Call," jointly issued by PSR and the National Wildlife Federation, explains that scientists have found that global boiling will disproportionately threaten the health of the very old and very young, as well as the poor and those who live in big cities: Global Warming Will Bring More Extreme Heat Waves. As the United States warms another 4 to 11°F on average over the next century, we will have more extremely hot summer days. Every part of the country will be affected. Urban areas will feel the heat more acutely because asphalt, concrete, and other structures absorb and reradiate heat, causing temperature to be as much as 10°F higher than nearby rural areas. Urban Air Pollution Will Be Exacerbated By More Extreme Heat. Warm, sunny conditions accelerate the formation of ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. Even if air pollution is improved, as required by the Clean Air Act, global warming could mean an extra 10 parts per billion (ppb) of ozone during heat waves in the Midwest and Northeast, forcing some cities to take even more aggressive steps to meet the 75 ppb ozone standard. Heat Waves Disproportionately Impact The Most Vulnerable. Heat waves disproportionately affect the very old and very young, as well as people who are poor, have asthma or heart disease, or live in big cities. With often diminished health and a greater likelihood of living alone, the elderly are especially vulnerable. As the U.S. demographics shift toward an older and more urban population, efforts to protect these at-risk communities from extreme heat will become increasingly important. Natural Habitats And Agriculture Are Also Vulnerable To Extreme Heat. More extreme temperatures are already pushing wildlife and their habitats beyond their normal tolerance levels. Heat-related declines have been documented for wild salmon and trout, moose, and pika. Livestock and crops have lower productivity and increased mortality associated with heat stress and drought. We Can Reduce The Severity Of Heat Waves And Their Impacts On Vulnerable People. Curbing global warming pollution as much and as quickly as possible is an essential first step. Shifting to clean solar energy is an especially promising option because sunlight is plentiful during heat waves, when electricity demand for air conditioning peaks. At the same time, we must make our cities cooler and greener; for example, introducing more green space — parks, trees, and "green" roofs — can greatly reduce the urban heat island effect. Furthermore, cities must implement public health measures to reduce the impact of extreme heat that we can not avoid.
Because blacks are disproportionately urban and poor, the rising tide of heat waves will affect them more severely than the U.S. white population. As NAACP's president Benjamin Todd Jealous explained, "Climate change is a civil rights issue."
Finally, here is the full chart from the NOAA-led impact report: ![]( "noaa-heat-waves")
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| 'Stress' is shrinking polar bears Posted: 25 Aug 2009 05:19 PM PDT 
The BBC reports: Polar bears have shrunk over the last century, according to research. Scientists compared bear skulls from the early 20th Century with those from the latter half of the century. Their study, in the Journal of Zoology, describes changes in size and shape that could be linked an increase in pollution and the reduction in sea ice. Physical "stress" caused by pollutants in the bears' bodies, and the increased effort needed to find food, could limit the animals' growth, the team said.
Okay, it's not most important climate story in the world, but it does let me use the above photo again. I should note that the NYT's Revkin blogged last month, "More Polar Bear Populations in Decline": There is rising concern among polar bear biologists that the big recent summertime retreats of sea ice in the Arctic are already harming some populations of these seal-hunting predators. That was one conclusion of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, a network of bear experts who met last week in Copenhagen to review the latest data (and data gaps) on the 19 discrete populations of polar bears around the Arctic. The group, part of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, includes biologists in academia and government and at nonprofit conservation organizations. Only one bear population is increasing (in the Canadian high Arctic), while eight are declining in numbers, the scientists said. At its last meeting, in 2005, the group concluded that five populations were in decline. Three populations appear to be stable and seven are too poorly monitored to gauge a trend.
As for the new study, here's the abstract for "Craniometric characteristics of polar bear skulls from two periods with contrasting levels of industrial pollution and sea ice extent" (subs. req'd):
A morphometric study was conducted on six skull traits and seven teeth traits of 282 polar bear Ursus maritimus skulls sampled in East Greenland from 1892 to 2002, the polar bear material originated from two distinct periods: one period covering 1892–1939 and the other from 1961–2002. The first period being before the introduction of organochlorines in the Arctic environment and having more extensive sea ice cover when compared with the later period. Admixture analysis, followed by multivariate analyses provided evidence for morphometric differences in both the size and the shape of individual skulls collected in the two periods. These findings are possibly a consequence of environmental factors, such as exposure of organohalogens and changed extension of sea ice, ultimately affecting the amount of prey available, a general weakening of the immune system and reduced reproductive success, factors that can affect the individual growth and the realized size at maturity. The process of reduced reproductive success due to a high concentration of organochlorine and/or changes in the amount of food resources may also have affected the polar bears' genetic composition and effective population size. Changes in the genetic composition of the population are suggested to have contributed to the observed morphometric changes with time. The fact that environmental and genetic changes produce different combinations of patterns of morphometric changes allows us to individuate the causes of the morphometrical modifications.
In plain English: "Because the ice is melting, the bears have to use much more energy to hunt their prey," explained Cino Pertoldi, professor of biology from Aarhus University and the Polish Academy of Science, and lead scientist in this study. "Imagine you have two twins – one is well fed during its growth and one is starving. (The starving) one will be much smaller, because it will not have enough energy to allocate to growth." The team, which included colleagues from Aarhus University's Department of Arctic Environment, also found shape differences between the skulls from the different periods. This development was slightly more mysterious, said Dr Pertoldi. He explained that it was not possible to determine the cause, but that the changes could be linked to the environment – more specifically to pollutants that have built up in the Arctic, and in the polar bears' bodies. The aim of the study was to compare two groups of animals that lived during periods when sea ice extent and pollution levels were very different. The pollutants that the scientists focused on were compounds containing carbon and halogens – fluorine, chlorine, bromine or iodine. Some of these compounds have already been phased out, but many still have important uses in industry. These include solvents, pesticides, refrigerants, adhesives and coatings…. Rune Dietz from Aarhus University was another member of the research team. He explained that he and his colleagues had already determined a link between man-made "persistent organic pollutants" and reduced bone mineral density in polar bears – which could leave the animals vulnerable to injury and to the bone disease osteoporosis…. He said: "Polar bears are one of the most polluted mammals on the globe."
And you thought Homo "sapiens" sapiens had nothing in common with Ursus maritimus. Related Posts: |
| Rajendra Pachauri endorses 350 ppm, not as IPCC chair but "as a human being" Posted: 25 Aug 2009 02:42 PM PDT 
I'm delighted to have the great environmental writer and founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, as the guest blogger for this big story. Note that Pachauri was the guy handpicked by Bush to replace the "alarmist" Bob Watson. But it's the facts that make people alarmists, not their politics or professional background (see "Desperate times, desperate scientists"). This blog was the very first place to take note of an oped I wrote for the Washington Post in late December of 2007, which in turn was the first public notice of a talk Jim Hansen had given a few days earlier at the AGU conference in San Francisco. That was where Hansen announced his finding: 350 ppm CO2 represented the bottom line for the planet. In the 18 months since, as we've built 350.org, we've found lots of support–from Al Gore, from 94 of the world's smallest and poorest nations, and so on. But today may have been the biggest breakthrough of all: Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, said clearly and unequivocally that 350 is the number. Here's a few lines from his interview with Agence France Presse:
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he told Agence France Presse in an interview.
It's not going to be stated any more clearly than that, at least until 2014 when the next IPCC report is due. There's now no convenient gray area for national governments (or environmental groups) to hide in. The Obama administration, among others, has made 450 ppm its target, but that target is now clearly exposed as too little too late. We're now working towards our October 24 day of action at 350.org with redoubled energy. We've already got 1300 actions scheduled around the globe–it's going to be the most widespread day of environmental action ever. It's a day for the world to say what its leading climate scientists have now unequivocally declared: 350 is the most important number in the world. – Bill McKibben, Middlebury College JR: For the science behind 350 ppm, see "Stabilize at 350 ppm or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA, Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al." Since the science is preliminary and it is not not yet politically possible to get to 450 ppm, let alone 350, my basic view, as expressed in that post, is Let's start working now toward stabilizing below 450 ppm, while climate scientists figure out if in fact we need to ultimately get below 350. Either way, this is what needs to be done technology-wise: "How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated)." The difference between the two targets is that for 450 ppm, you need to do the 12-14 wedges in four decades. For 350 ppm, you (roughly) need 8 wedges in about two decades plus another 10 wedges over the next three decades (and then have the world go carbon negative as soon as possible after that), which requires a global WWII-style and WWII-scale strategy (see "An open letter to James Hansen on the real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm"). |
| Memo to Alcoa, Kodak, IBM, Nike, Pepsi, Toyota et al.: Luddite U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on global warming Posted: 25 Aug 2009 10:38 AM PDT 
Who ever could have imagined that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would publicly — and proudly — equate climate science with evolution and their denial with a belief in creationism? Time now for the the major businesses on the Chamber's board to speak up since many of them publicly claim to support strong climate action (see here). It might also be time for advocates to start boycotting those brand-name companies if they don't act swiftly to stop First, however, the mind-boggling L. A. Times story: The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" — complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect. "It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial." The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.
What's the next step for the Chamber — calling for a law banning the teaching of climate science comparable to the 1925 Tennessee law banning the teaching of human evolution that was the basis for the Scopes trial? You probably thought that the crafty global warming deniers — especially the corporate ones who represent businesses with lots of customers — had gotten together in a room and decided to focus on the economics of the bill or on China's and India's intransigence, while keeping their flat-earth views to themselves for fear of not being taken seriously, for fear of being seen as far outside the mainstream. How wrong you were. Apparently global warming denial is the new creationism. The funny thing is, most creationists themselves realized a while back how transparently untenable their public arguments were, so even they have created the media- and moderate-friendly term "intelligent design." The Chamber's head is so stuck in the ground that they actually think it makes sense to analogize their desire to put climate science on trial with the famous Scopes Monkey case, which ultimately "caused millions of Americans to ridicule religious-based opposition to the theory of evolution." For the record, the Scopes case was over the 1925 Butler Act: which made it unlawful, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, "to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."
This is what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the 21st century wants to associate itself with. Apparently climate science denial isn't Luddite enough for them in 2009. Now they want to join the Anti-Evolution League. 
[Note to self: "Hell & The High School" -- could be a good name for a textbook on global warming or perhaps a Disney musical....]  Ironically, the more sophisticated conservative deniers accept the science of evolution, such as Charles Krauthammer — who wrote in "Phony Theory, False Conflict," that "Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God." And yet he is a hard-core climate science denier (see, for instance, Krauthammer's strange denier talk points, Part 1: Newton's laws were "overthrown"). Similarly, another hard core climate science denier, George Will, also believes in evolution — he actually called it "a fact."
The LAT story continues: EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare." Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science — and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end. The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence." … the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science." Most climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, are warming the planet. Using computer models and historical temperature data, those scientists predict the warming will accelerate unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced. "The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," said a recent letter to world leaders by the heads of the top science agencies in 13 of the world's largest countries, including the head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
And since the Chamber seems painfully unaware of … well, everything, it is probably worth pointing out that we actually had a major trial of the science (see "Hansen vs. Christy." In the Vermont case on the state's effort to embrace California's tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the car companies brought in famed denier/delayer John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, as an expert witness to rebut the country's top climate scientist (see here). The judge found: There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen's testimony. Plaintiffs' own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC's assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet's surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.
Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation's effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has become nothing more than an Echo Chamber of Horrors, repeating whatever nonsense the fossil fuel industry or global warming deniers comes up with. Perhaps a better term for them is "monkey see, monkey do" — no offense to monkeys, though, many species of which are likely to be wiped out if we keep listening to the deniers. Again, it's time for the Chamber's Board Members — full list here — to declare whether they are evolved members of humanity or dedicated to our self-destruction. Here are some of the members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce board who claim to "Support economy-wide reductions in CO2 emissions and/or federal cap-and-trade legislation" (see here): - Alcoa
- Caterpillar Inc.
- Deere & Company
- Dow Chemical Company
- Duke Energy
- Eastman Kodak
- Entergy
- Fox Entertainment Group
- IBM
- Lockheed
- Nike Inc.
- PepsiCo
- PNM Resources
- Rolls Royce North America Inc.
- Siemens Corporation
- Toyota Motor North America Inc.
- Xerox
|
| Energy and Global Warming News for August 25th: India unveils domestic cap and trade system; Chinese legislature takes up climate change for first time Posted: 25 Aug 2009 09:12 AM PDT Indian Government unveils cap and trade market worth $15 bln India has approved in principle new trading plans centred on energy efficiency as part of efforts to shift to a greener economy to fight climate change, opening up a potential market worth more than $15 billion by 2015. Energy efficiency is a key focus in India's national climate change policy, unveiled last year and which lays out a roadmap to a green economy but doesn't fix a target for carbon emissions. Officials said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday approved in principle the national energy efficiency plan, which puts in place new financial architecture chiefly centring around trading of efficiency certificates and the carbon market…. A government statement said the efficiency mission would ensure an annual saving of 5 percent of India's total energy consumption and a cut of about 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year from its annual emissions of about 3 [1.5] billion tonnes now.
Not certain how Reuters got India's CO2 emissions wrong by a factor of 2! "It's a fairly ambitious beginning," said K. Srinivas, former climate campaigner of Greenpeace India. "We have reached the stage where we are willing to cap and trade. Now they have to ensure sustained implementation."
Climate change on the agenda of China's NPC
China's top legislature, for the first time in its history, is specifically addressing climate change with the review of a draft resolution, after hearing a report on the growing environmental problem Monday. Ni Yuefeng, a vice-chairman of the National People's Congress (NPC) environmental and resources protection committee, said the resolution shows the NPC is taking the issue seriously. The details of the resolution are expected to be on the agenda today. "The involvement of the legislative body in climate change issues will help facilitate government actions to combat global warming," he said. China is determined to be a country that is a leader in the global growing emphasis on environmentalism, top climate official Xie Zhenhua said Monday. But China has recognized fighting global warming as its internal drive for sustainable development, and will include the climate change strategy in its economic and social development plans, top climate official Xie Zhenhua said Monday The country will make great efforts toward developing a "green economy," building low-carbon projects and assessing economic performance by how much less carbon was emitted per unit of GDP growth, according to Xie.
China Racing Ahead of America in the Drive to Go Solar President Obama wants to make the United States "the world's leading exporter of renewable energy," but in his seven months in office, it is China that has stepped on the gas in an effort to become the dominant player in green energy — especially in solar power, and even in the United States. Chinese companies have already played a leading role in pushing down the price of solar panels by almost half over the last year. Shi Zhengrong, the chief executive and founder of China's biggest solar panel manufacturer, Suntech Power Holdings, said in an interview here that Suntech, to build market share, is selling solar panels on the American market for less than the cost of the materials, assembly and shipping. The Obama administration is determined to help the American industry. The energy and Treasury departments announced this month that they would give $2.3 billion in tax credits to clean energy equipment manufacturers.
Lower-cost Solar Cells To Be Printed Like Newspaper, Painted On Rooftops Solar cells could soon be produced more cheaply using nanoparticle "inks" that allow them to be printed like newspaper or painted onto the sides of buildings or rooftops to absorb electricity-producing sunlight. Brian Korgel, a University of Texas at Austin chemical engineer, is hoping to cut costs to one-tenth of their current price by replacing the standard manufacturing process for solar cells – gas-phase deposition in a vacuum chamber, which requires high temperatures and is relatively expensive.
His team has developed solar-cell prototypes with efficiencies at one percent; however, they need to be about 10 percent.
"If we get to 10 percent, then there's real potential for commercialization," Korgel said. "If it works, I think you could see it being used in three to five years."
Groups target GOP on cap-and-trade Four independent groups are launching more than $1 million in attack ads Tuesday targeting five House Republicans who voted against energy legislation in June, spokespeople for the groups said. The ads from the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, MoveOn and Americans United for Change, will target Reps. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Denny Rehberg (R- Mont.), Roy Blunt (R- Mo.) and two Virginia Republicans, Frank Wolf and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor. The ad casts the members as siding with "big oil and energy interests" and against "the jobs we really need" because they voted against the legislation that would set up a system of trading carbon permits known as "cap-and-trade" and impose a series of other measures aimed at reducing emissions.
Clean energy loan picks up steam A proposed revolving loan fund of $30 million for clean energy technology is gaining support from 150 clean energy manufacturers, marking a growing fault line in the struggling industry. The companies represent a hodgepodge of small- and medium-sized businesses, largely specializing in clean energy sectors like solar and wind technology. They also stand to benefit the most from the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
South could maintain current demand levels through efficiency (subscription required) The South could largely offset its growth in energy demand through 2020 if it fully utilized "cost-effective" energy efficiency measures, according to a report released today. "Our research points to a reservoir of cost-effective energy savings that offsets the need to build any new coal-fired power plants in the South over the next decade," Marilyn Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology, the report's co-author, said in a statement. "Too often, debates on new plant construction focus on cost-effectiveness and health impacts while ignoring the benefits that could occur by rethinking policies on the demand side of the equation. This study informs that discussion," she said.
Federal Carbon Storage Grants Awarded The Department of Energy announced $27.6 million in research grants on Monday, for projects intended to simulate the underground storage of carbon dioxide.
The 19 awards, to be distributed over four years, will be supplemented by $8.2 million paid by the recipients, which are predominantly universities.
Carbon capture and storage technology — or C.C.S. — is especially important for coal-fired power plants, which account for close to half of the country's electricity use and a substantial portion of its carbon emissions.
After national park tour, Udall, McCain agree global warming a problem but stay quiet on fixes Global warming is threatening America's national parks. But there is no consensus about how to prevent the harm. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado toured Rocky Mountain National Park Monday then heard testimony from parks officials and scientists about how global warming is harming the park system. Glacier National Park, for example, is losing its glaciers, while low-lying coastal parkland is in danger of going underwater. Both senators said confronting climate change is paramount. "A common misperception is that this is a crisis that is down the road," McCain said. "Climate change is real. It's happening now." However, there was no discussion at the hearing on what should be done to address climate change.
|
