Saturday, September 5, 2009

Climate Progress

Climate Progress


Solar panels to boost property prices

Posted: 03 Sep 2009 08:36 AM PDT

Home Solar Panel Arrays

The UK website BusinessGreen reports on a survey of 2,700 UK adults, which "found that half of respondents are interested in finding out whether their home is suitable for renewable energy systems, such as solar panels":

Meanwhile, over a third said they would be willing to pay more for a house where some of the energy was supplied by renewable sources, suggesting that those investing in microgeneration systems will be able to recoup some of the cost through increased house prices.

The same should apply in this country, especially since a lot Americans understand energy prices are going up whether or not there is a climate bill.  The point is that as peak oil kicks in and the reality of human-caused climate change becomes painfully clear, energy efficiency, geothermal heat pumps, solar panels and the like will increasingly be seen as a desirable if not essential elements of a home, like an up-to-date kitchen, rather than just a "cost."

The story on the from the Energy Saving Trust survey continues:

Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust, said that the findings were good news for the UK's emerging onsite renewables sector. "It seems Britons are willing to pay more for a home with a renewable energy source so investing in a solar panel or a wind turbine could add to the resale value of a property and be as attractive to house hunters as a new kitchen or solid wood floors," he said.

The survey also confirmed that the high upfront cost of renewable energy systems — the cheapest solar energy systems cost over £3,000 and most technologies take anything between five and 25 years to deliver a return on investment — remains the main barrier to adoption.

Hence the need for maintaining tax credits, until we have a price for CO2 that represents its full damage cost.

Related Post:

"Green" Verizon sponsoring anti-climate rally backed by coal giant Massey Energy

Posted: 03 Sep 2009 05:58 AM PDT

Major U.S. companies must decide if they support clean energy, which delivers clean air and protects clean water for our children — or do they support the greedy corporate polluters?  This ThinkProgress post exposes another company trying to have it both ways.

green-bannere

On Labor Day, tens of thousands of people will be gathering for the coal-powered "Friends of America Rally" in Holden, WV. The point of the gathering is to rail against the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation. It will feature right-wing guests such as Sean Hannity and Ted Nugent (who once ranted about killing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton), and is being pushed by mountaintop-removal mining company Massey Energy. Last week, Massey CEO Don Blankenship even recorded a video inviting people to attend the rally, saying they would learn about how "environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs." Watch it:

The sponsors for the rally are mostly regional oil, gas, and coal companies. However, the list also includes the Science and Public Policy Institute — a fringe climate-denial organization — and Verizon Wireless. CREDO Action recently launched a campaign calling on Verizon to drop its sponsorship. CREDO Political Director Becky Bond contacted Verizon's Vice President of Corporate Communications Jim Gerace to inform him that that CREDO would be launching a campaign against Verizon. Gerace responded by disparaging Bond:

This is how our response is going over with the activists. Becky once lived in a tree for a while. At least now I know where the emails are coming from.

For the record, Bond never lived in a tree. Verizon's vice president of federal government relations also sits on the board of the global-warming denier National Association of Manufacturers.

Blankenship recently gained attention because the Supreme Court rebuked him for buying West Virginia judges. He has called opponents of his coal "communists," "atheists," and "greeniacs" and labeled a cap and trade system a "Ponzi scheme."

Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Laura Merritt told the Charleston Gazette that Verizon's decision to sponsor the rally was made "at the local level to support the community." "It wasn't an effort to take a position on any particular issue," she added. However, the pro-coal policies that Verizon is now sponsoring actually hurt communities in West Virginia. As the Wonk Room's Brad Johnson has written:

The coal-dominated economy of West Virginia is a troubling example of the cruelty of coalocracy. Despite $118 million in coal-mining annual income, West Virginia has the nation's lowest median household income, worst educational services, worst social assistance, the highest population with disabilities, and nearly a quarter of West Virginia children in poverty.

Interestingly, Verizon brags that "environmental stewardship is ingrained in Verizon's heritage, and the company prides itself on having a positive influence on the environment in which it operates." It has a whole page devoted to its "green initiatives." Take action here and tell Verizon that if it really wants to be green, it needs to stop sponsoring global warming denial rallies.

Update Miles Grant points out that the rally is being held "on a previous surface mine," an area that has been decimated by mountaintop removal.
Related Post:
http://www.youtube.com/v/FiAc5IVXI7g&hl=en&fs=1&">http://www.youtube.com/v/FiAc5IVXI7g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425″ height="344″>

Swing state poll finds 60% "would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill" and Independents support the bill 2-to-1

Posted: 02 Sep 2009 05:01 PM PDT

The Politico reports on a new poll of 821 registered voters "in 16 key states who said they were likely to vote in next year's mid-term congressional elections":

In a poll obtained by POLITICO of likely 2010 voters in 16 states, many of them home to targeted senators, 63% of those sampled said they supported the energy bill while only 30% said they opposed the measure.

Further, 60% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill while just 26% said they'd be less inclined to re-elect their senator for backing the "American Clean Energy and Security Act."

Yes, this is precisely what ever other major poll shows (see Yet another major poll finds "broad support" for clean energy and climate bill: "Support for the plan among independents has increased slightly" plus links and Ruy Teixeira analysis below).

This poll is important because it interviewed likely voters in 16 states that have a large fraction of the swing Senators — AK, AR, IN, ME, MI, MO, MT, NC, NV, ND, NH, OH, PA, SD, VA, WV.  More key results:

  • Independents support ACES by 59% support to 30%.
  • On job creation:  50% say the number of jobs will increase, 26% say it will decrease and 26% say it won't change.
  • 53% say ACES will increase America's standing as a world leader in renewable energy, 28% say it won't change and just 10% say it will decrease.

Strangely, the Politico piece has an opening sentence that is flat wrong, politically:

With hope for Senate action on the energy bill dimming, advocates are aiming to prod reluctant senators with a new survey taken in swing states showing strong support for the legislation.

Hope isn't "dimming."  After many recent conversations with pundits, staffers, and real politicos, I find no substantive basis for that whatsoever.  Hope for Senate action is just about the same as it has always been — a tough slog, a 50-50 shot at best, unless Obama puts his full weight behind the bill, in which case passage becomes likely.

Indeed, what is most remarkable about this poll and the others is how strong support remains for the bill in spite of the best efforts of the well-funded opponents to spread disinformation:
"These poll results demonstrate that people support proposals that would boost clean energy technologies made in America, create 1.7 million jobs, and make us more energy independent," said CAP's Dan Weiss. "Despite big oil spending $80 million to smear the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a majority of Americans still believe that it would create jobs. Special interests' scare tactics have failed."
With all the brouhaha about health care reform, it's easy to forget the other big domestic policy priority before Congress: energy policy and climate change. Here the Obama administration's approach continues to receive solid public support. According to just-released data from ABC News/Washington Post, support is running about a 2-1 ratio for the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy (57 percent to 29 percent).

chart on energy policy opinion

Moreover, more people think these changes would add jobs in their state than believe jobs would be lost (36 percent to 15 percent). Evidently, conservative attempts to characterize the energy bill as a huge job-loser have so far failed to sway the public.

chart on energy policy opinion

Support for a "cap-and-trade" approach to greenhouse gas regulation has also been holding steady. In June, there was a 52-42 support for this approach; today it's an essentially identical 52-43 in favor.

chart on energy policy opinion

Finally, it's worth noting that the public's top-five-rated policy steps to address our country's energy needs all involve alternative energy and conservation, not fossil fuels or nuclear: develop more solar and wind power (91 percent in favor); require car manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles sold in this country (85 percent); develop electric car technology (82 percent); require more energy conservation by businesses and industries (78 percent); and require more energy conservation by consumers (73 percent).

It's clear which way the public wants to go. Let's hope Congress follows along.

chart on energy policy opinion

Imagine a World without Fish: Deadly ocean acidification — hard to deny, harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop — is subject of documentary

Posted: 02 Sep 2009 01:46 PM PDT

Global warming is "capable of wrecking the marine ecosystem and depriving future generations of the harvest of the seas" (see Ocean dead zones to expand, "remain for thousands of years").

A post on ocean acidification from the new Conservation Law Foundation blog has brought to my attention that the first documentary on the subject, A Sea Change: Imagine a World without Fish, is coming out.

Ocean acidification must be a core climate message, since it is hard to deny and impervious to the delusion that geoengineering is the silver bullet.  Indeed, a major 2009 study GRL study, "Sensitivity of ocean acidification to geoengineered climate stabilization" (subs. req'd), concluded:

The results of this paper support the view that climate engineering will not resolve the problem of ocean acidification, and that therefore deep and rapid cuts in CO2 emissions are likely to be the most effective strategy to avoid environmental damage from future ocean acidification.

If you want to understand ocean acidification better, see this BBC story, which explains:

Man-made pollution is raising ocean acidity at least 10 times faster than previously thought, a study says.

Or see this Science magazine study, "Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive "Acidified" Water onto the Continental Shelf" (subs. req'), which found

Our results show for the first time that a large section of the North American continental shelf is impacted by ocean acidification. Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being upwelled onto the shelf.

Or listen to the Australia's ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which warns:

The world's oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially devastating consequences for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the Earth's breathable oxygen.

The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which make up more than a third of the planet's marine life….

Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify).

"Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years," says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. "There's not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans.

"When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans." (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.)

I'd like to see an analysis of what happens when you get to 850 to 1000+ ppm because that is where we're headed (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: "Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised" — 1000 ppm).

The CLF post notes:

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warns that an acidic ocean is the "equally evil twin" of climate change. Scott Doney, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution noted in a public presentation that "New England is the most vulnerable region in the country to ocean acidification."

In June, dozens of Academies of Science, including ours and China's, issued a joint statement on ocean acidification, warned "Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production and security in regions dependent on fish protein, and human health and wellbeing" and "Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least tens of thousands of years."  They conclude:

Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more thereafter are needed.

We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to:

• Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above;

• Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification;

• Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat;

• Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter.

If we want to save life in the oceans — and save ourselves, since we depend on that life — the time to start slashing carbon dioxide emissions is now.