Saturday, September 12, 2009

Fw: Climate Progress


Climate Progress

Climate Progress


Energy and Global Warming News for September 11: New York City braces for risk of higher seas; EU environment chief sees 100% chance of deal in Copenhagen

Posted: 11 Sep 2009 09:10 AM PDT

On a day of remembrance for that epic tragedy to hit New York, here's a story about how New York is preparing for the tragedy ever knows is coming..

NY flooding

New York City Braces for Risk of Higher Seas

When major ice sheets thaw, they release enough fresh water to disrupt ocean currents world-wide and make the planet wobble with the uneven weight of so much meltwater on the move. Studying these effects more closely, scientists are discovering local variations in rising sea levels — and some signs pointing to higher seas around metropolitan New York.

Sea level may rise faster near New York than at most other densely populated ports due to local effects of gravity, water density and ocean currents, according to four new forecasts of melting ice sheets. The forecasts are the work of international research teams that included the University of Toronto, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., Florida State University and the University of Bristol in the U.K., among others.

Scientists are laboring to make their predictions more reliable. While they do, New York has become an urban experiment in the ways that seaboard cities can adapt to climate change over the next century. For their part, the city's long-term planners are taking action but are trying to balance the cost of re-engineering the largest city in the U.S. against the uncertainties of climate forecasts.

"We can't make multibillion-dollar decisions based on the hypothetical," says Rohit Aggarwala, the city's director of long-term planning and sustainability.

Still, prompted by a possibility of floods from higher seas, some university-based marine researchers and civil engineers are debating whether New York ought to protect its low-lying financial district, port, power grid and subways with storm surge barriers like the mobile bulwarks that safeguard London, Rotterdam, Netherlands, and St. Petersburg, Russia. Engineering concepts for multibillion-dollar barriers around New York harbor were discussed here this week during the H209 Water Forum, an international conference on coastal cities and climate change, held by the Henry Hudson 400 Foundation at the Liberty Science Center.

EU Environment Chief Sees 100% Chance Of Deal In Copenhagen

There is no alternative to a global agreement on fighting climate change, so the chances of securing a deal at a meeting in Copenhagen later this year are 100%, European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said Thursday.

"This is what common sense tells us. We need to have an agreement, there is no alternative," Dimas said during a press conference at which he presented a commission blueprint for financing the fight against climate change in developing countries.

The European Union wants to lead negotiations at the Copenhagen summit in December to reach an international agreement on limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius, compared with pre-industrial temperatures.

The deal would be the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated more than a decade ago.

Climate deal should not drive jobs offshore: U.N.

The world must devise a climate change treaty that will allow all countries to contribute to cutting emissions and not drive companies and jobs to other nations, the U.N.'s top climate official said on Thursday.

Negotiations on a new global accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are set to conclude in the Danish capital Copenhagen in December, but officials are struggling to come up with a division of responsibilities that will satisfy all sides.

The United States is committed to reducing its own carbon dioxide (CO2) output, but many legislators are worried that an emissions trading scheme will give a competitive edge to Chinese industries.

"There's a huge concern on the part of employers and labor unions in the United States that an agreement that distorts economic relations is going to have a damaging effect on the United States economy," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"The challenge is to craft a way forward in Copenhagen, to craft an agreement which does not result in economic activity shifting from one country to another. That doesn't make sense at the end of the day," he said on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Dalian.

Solar fab2farm™ Model Offers a Blueprint for Affordable Clean Energy and Local Economic Development

To help meet the world`s critical need for renewable energy, Applied Materials, Inc. has developed an innovative fab2farm™ business model for solar deployment designed to bring cost-effective, utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) power generation capability to local areas and stimulate economic development.
The fab2farm model represents a complete regional ecosystem, bringing together communities, utilities and solar panel manufacturers to drive down the cost of solar electricity, create green jobs, and spur local economic activity — while delivering a supply of clean energy for decades to come.

Key to the fab2farm model is a locally-sited solar panel factory built by a solar module manufacturer using Applied`s revolutionary SunFab thin film production line. The SunFab line produces the world`s largest and most powerful solar PV panels, which are optimally suited for utility-owned solar farms. Since electricity generation is sited for distribution near load centers, a solar farm can be quickly deployed without the need for extensive, costly transmission lines. This utility-scale solar farm would not only generate cost-competitive, clean, renewable energy for the community, it can help the utility avoid up to 170,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year.

"Applied`s fab2farm model unlocks a low-risk, cost-effective opportunity to integrate solar PV electricity into a community`s energy portfolio," said John Antone, vice president, Energy and Environmental Solutions, Applied Materials. "This approach enables a significant share of solar PV investment dollars to remain in the community, in contrast to fossil fuel based power generation sources. It would create a regional economic engine generating a steady supply of skilled jobs and a path to achieving the lowest installed solar energy cost."

Five EU states vow to step up climate diplomacy

Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden and Finland agreed Thursday to intensify "green diplomacy" to rescue an ambitious global climate agreement in Copenhagen in December, officials said.

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller said the European Union had shown leadership by committing itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 or by 30 percent if other countries make comparable cuts.

"Now it is time to show the same leadership on ensuring an ambitious financial package that can assist the poorest countries to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change," Moller told a news conference.

"We today have agreed to work together to secure an ambitious deal in Copenhagen," Moller said after a meeting with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and the Swedish and Finnish foreign ministers Carl Bildt and Alexander Stubb in the Danish capital.

With less than 100 days until the December 7-18 Copenhagen conference, Moller said the momentum toward a climate deal risked fading away if the opportunity were not seized now.

Differences between rich and poor countries over funds for dealing with the consequences of climate change have emerged as the main stumbling block to a new U.N. climate treaty which world leaders hope to agree in Copenhagen in December.

U.S. must lead at G20 on climate, says group

The United States should show decisive leadership at the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh this month and rally heads of state to prepare for the next global crisis — climate change.

In a speech before the G20 meeting on September 24-25, Nancy Birdsall, president of the Washington-based Center for Global Development, said preparing for climate change was key because it was a new issue and because the world's poor will be severely hurt by it.

Influential think tanks in Washington typically schedule briefings and speeches ahead of big international gatherings in a bid to influence the agenda. This week, G20 ministers are meeting in Washington to finalize the agenda for Pittsburgh.

"To make this summit a success the heads of government must look beyond the current (financial) crisis and begin to prepare for the crisis next time," said Birdsall.

She proposed G20 leaders pledge to work together, before the next summit in Seoul, South Korea, on reaching agreement on ways to implement a future global climate pact.

New Ad Campaign Promotes Climate Legislation

A newly formed alliance pushing for passage of climate legislation used President Obama's prime-time speech on health care yesterday to launch an advertising campaign that asks people to lobby lawmakers for action on global warming.

Clean Energy Works — a coalition of environmental, labor, veteran and hunting and fishing advocacy groups — is footing the bill for the campaign that will run for a week on broadcast and cable television stations. The ad appeared during breaks in coverage of Obama's speech and on NBC's "Tonight Show."

"We want to remind people that while health care is important, clean energy also is on the agenda," said Josh Dorner, spokesman for Clean Energy Works. "It's an issue that's of equal if not greater concern to the American people than health care reform."

The campaign launches as the Senate gets back to work after its August recess, with energy legislation on its plate along with health care.

The ads mark the latest salvo in a series of efforts to sway public opinion and Congress on climate legislation. The National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Businesses teamed up for ads that ran in late August in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia. Those were intended to drive opposition to climate legislation. Last month, coal's biggest lobbying group launched a television ad campaign featuring ordinary people talking about the importance of low-cost electricity.

Poland sees lower shortfall of CO2 permits

"Poland's shortfall of pollution permits under the European Union's climate plan may reach a lower-than-expected 50 million tons between 2008 and 2012, Deputy Environment Minister Bernard Blaszczyk said on Thursday.

"The figure is lower than previous estimates because the economic crisis has crimped industry emissions and energy demand in the coal-reliant country and biggest ex-communist EU member.

""The deficit should not top 50 million tons for the whole economy, but given the technology innovations and the crisis in particular, it could also be somehow lower than that. It should not amount to hundreds of millions of tons," Blaszczyk said at the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit.

"Warsaw originally opposed the bloc's climate package aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming, arguing less pollution rights would hurt its expanding economy. Poland eventually agreed to the plan after getting concessions.

"Until the end of 2012 many installations under the scheme receive some carbon dioxide (CO2) permits for free, but in the next phase of the plan the vast majority of them will be sold on market tenders.

House Passes Bill to Encourage Hybrid Trucks

The House on Wednesday passed a bill to encourage research and production of hybrid-powered commercial vehicles. The bill, passed by voice vote, would create a grant program for research and development of hybrid heavy-duty trucks. A similar bill passed the House in the last Congress but was never taken up by the Senate.

The bill, passed by voice vote, would create a grant program for research and development of hybrid heavy-duty trucks. A similar bill passed the House in the last Congress but was never taken up by the Senate.

"Hopefully we can get some movement on this measure this time around," said Paul Tonko , D-N.Y. "By enhancing the Department of Energy's research program in heavy duty hybrid trucks, this bill draws much-needed focus to a very critical component of the transportation sector — that being commercial trucks."

Heavy-duty trucks typically rely on diesel or gasoline engines for power, and have lower fuel economy and higher emissions than cars or SUVs because of their size and weight.

Carbon trading needs to be transparent, lawmakers told

If the Senate passes a cap and trade bill, it needs to be regulated so that trading of carbon credits is transparent and not subject to manipulation, members of the Senate Agriculture Committee were told Wednesday. "If we're serious about a cap and trade system, that means we must get the trading part right," Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) said when he opened the hearing. He added that he's concerned about the potential for excessive speculation in carbon credits to distort their value.

Under a bill passed by the House, emitters of greenhouse gases will have to buy offsets, which could include carbon sequestered in the soil of farms that practice no-till, or on land planted to trees.

Gary Gensler, chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), told the panel that the CFTC aleady has experience monitoring the trading of offsets for sulfur dioxide, a regulated byproduct of coal burning that causes acid rain. And the CFTC monitors trading of carbon credits under a voluntary program run by the Chicago Climate Exchange.

For a carbon market to work properly, Gensler said, it will need 5 things: uniform standards, record keeping, oversight of trade, clearing of the trades and prevention of fraud.

Dirty coal group's 14th forgery impersonated American veterans. Real vets support strong efforts to action on climate and clean energy — as does GOP Senator John Warner, former Armed Services Committee chair

Posted: 11 Sep 2009 07:01 AM PDT

American Legion forgeryClimate change is a major threat to U.S. Security.  The clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would enhance our security by reducing oil dependence and environmental harm.  That's why the conservative Virgina Republican, John Warner, is pushing hard to pass the bill — because he is a former Navy secretary and former Senate Armed Services Committee chair and because he is a former Forest Service firefighter now "just absolutely heartbroken" because "the old forest, the white pine forest in which I worked, was absolutely gone, devastated, standing there dead from the bark beetle" thanks in large part to global warming (see interview below).

So it's no surprise the deniers and delayers spread disinformation to try to undercut this core message.  As Brad Johnson reports at Think Progress:

Congressional investigators have discovered that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity's (ACCCE) astroturfing effort has impersonated American military veterans in a forged letter sent to Congress. Thirteen other forgeries purporting to be from organizations representing blacks, Hispanics, women and senior citizens. This latest letter, sent in June to influence a swing Democratic legislator on his vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, impersonates a local American Legion official in Rocky Mount, VA:

As the Washington Post reported:

The letter, sent to the office of Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), asks Perriello to "make sure the Waxman-Markey bill includes provisions to promote American energy independence, while protecting already cash-strapped constituents from increases in electricity prices." It concludes, "Thank you for listening to concerns of vets in your district."

Download the forged letter.

Also yesterday, we saw Alstom quit the scandal-ridden coal industry front group, ACCCE, joining Duke and Alcoa.

Real veterans of the  Iraq War explain their support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act in this new advertisement from VoteVets.org:

Yesterday, more than 150 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — real ones — visited the White House and the Congress to argue that "climate change legislation is absolutely critical."   E&E Daily (subs. req'd) has the full story:

President Obama welcomed to the White House yesterday some 150 veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who are lobbying members of Congress for passage of a comprehensive energy and global warming bill.

The former soldiers and officers met with top Obama administration aides in the Old Executive Office Building as part of a broader messaging campaign aimed at taking the climate debate beyond its traditional audience.

"What you bring is what is vitally needed," former Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) told the group. "I don't mean to disparage environmentalists who've carried the torch on this for so many years."

But Warner, a former secretary of the Navy, said the war veterans add a human face to the global warming debate as military leaders take into account the increased risks of famine, human migration and water shortages that come with climate change.

Robert Diamond, a Navy lieutenant, urged his fellow former soldiers to write op-eds for their local newspapers and to get on the radio for interviews about energy issues.

"People listen to you," Diamond said. "People instantly give you credibility. You are the most powerful messenger out there."

Several veterans now serving in the Obama administration also spoke at the event, including Thomas Paul D'Agostino, the administrator for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, Joe Riojas of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Mike Parker from the Labor Department.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) also sought to link climate change with national security threats during a speech yesterday at George Washington University.

The former Democratic presidential nominee said there is a connection between the scientific alarms raised about global warming and the intelligence that U.S. officials had warning them in the days leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed more than 3,000 people.

"The real lesson of the day before, ladies and gentlemen, is that when we see a threat on the horizon, we can't afford to wait until it arrives," Kerry said. "Unless we take dramatic action now to restrain global climate change, we risk unleashing an aggressive new challenge to global stability, to the livelihoods of hundreds of millions, and yes, to America's national security."

Warner's is a remarkable story — a hard-core conservative Republican aggressively supporting the climate and clean energy bill.  He is "trying to build grass-roots support for congressional action to limit global warming," as Politics Daily reports.  "He is traveling the country to discuss military research that shows climate change is a threat to U.S. national security, and this fall he'll testify to Congress on the issue for the fourth time."  PD has a long interview with him, which I excerpt below:

PD: How did you get involved in this cause and what are you hoping to accomplish?
JW: There are two events. In 1943 I was 16 years old. . . . I got a job with the U.S. Forest Service as a firefighter on the border of Montana and Idaho. I worked that summer for three months in the most beautiful, pristine forest you've ever seen in your life. Five or six years ago I went to Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, to give a speech. I asked the Forest Service to take me back to those camps. I was just absolutely heartbroken. The old forest, the white pine forest in which I worked, was absolutely gone, devastated, standing there dead from the bark beetle. I said to the forest ranger, "This is such an emotional, distressing trip for me — what is the problem?" He said, "Our climate has changed so much out here. We don't have the cold winters which used to curtail the level of the bark beetle. So it's decimating the white pine and many valuable species." That sparked my interest.
PD: Does the responsibility fall to us to respond to the consequences of climate change?
JW: Not exclusively, but we're often in the forefront of response to these things. We're the nation with the most sealift. The most airlift. We have more medical teams which are mobile, more storehouses of food and supplies to meet emergencies. And throughout our history, from the beginning of the republic, America's always had to respond to certain humanitarian disasters.
PD: What are some examples of destabilization due to climate?
JW: One clear case of it is Somalia. [In the early 1990s] the prolonged drought began to tie up the economy, the food supplies. There was a certain amount of political and economic instability. Where you have fragile nations .. . . a serious climactic problem will come along, with a shortage of food or water, and often those governments are toppled. And then they fall to the evils of . . . terrorism or others who try to exploit these fallen governments. You saw it in Darfur. You saw it in Somalia. This political instability and weakness is given the final tilt by a problem associated with climactic change.
PD: Is your purpose to get national security into the forefront of the debate on climate change?
JW: Two years ago I teamed up with Joe Lieberman. The Lieberman-Warner bill was the only climate-energy bill that got out of a committee and actually got to the floor of the Senate. We debated it for three or four days. It had a cap-and-trade system [to limit carbon pollution]. . . . It was a very broad-based bill, a 500-page bill. The Bush administration felt they did not want to support it on their watch and it collapsed.
PD: What is your sense of the Senate at this point?
JW: The leadership of the Senate, primarily [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid, made a very wise decision at this time. All the committees that have a part of the jurisdiction are putting in their own recommendations for legislation. Therefore six committees are now preparing a bill to be submitted to Senator Reid the last week or so in September.
PD: Will senators give this issue the level of attention that you think is warranted?
JW: We just got back from Florida. They are very responsive there for two reasons. They have so many military bases. The men and women on those bases are affected by the additional missions they could be called on. . . . Public awareness should be raised. This is not just a private debate among environmentalists. The Department of Defense is really beginning to shoulder a good deal of the responsibility.
Here's the second thing that got Florida's attention, and that is sea rise. You raise the mean level of the oceans about two to three inches and it has a profound multiplying effect on hurricanes and other violent storms, and Florida is in the path of these storms. Also you've got so many military bases in South Carolina and Virginia. If there's a significant rise of the sea, you put military installations at risk.
PD: Are senators paying attention to you?
JW: I think so. Very much so. Certain chairpersons [John Kerry of Foreign Relations and Barbara Boxer of Environment and Public Works] are very interested. I haven't been as successful as I had hoped to engender the military committees to get involved. I have no means whatsoever under the ethics law to even call a senator or staffer. There is an Iron Curtain. But I can testify.
PD: With environmentalists already on board, are you trying to interest other types of people?
JW: That's quite true. People think climate change is solely an environmental campaign. And I . . . consider myself strongly in support of the environmental goals of this country. But a lot of people look with a different view on that. This says, "Hey, wait a minute, irrespective of your feeling about environmental concerns, here's a practical effect. Your sons or daughters or next door neighbor might be sent out on a military mission."
PD: Are you trying to reach out to conservatives?
JW: I'm not trying to identify them as conservatives, liberals or independents. I'm basically trying to tell the American public that if we're going to make progress with regard to climate change, it's got to start at the grass-roots level. President Obama is quite committed. Certain elements of Congress are quite committed. But it's going to take a significant grass-roots education program so the American public can decide: Is this something we should do for our nation? And I think there's going to be a price tag. There's going to be some cost, and I want to make sure people understand what's behind the need for it.
At the same time I was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. More and more [retired military] people would say to me, "We've got to take a look at this climate change. If it continues as it is and worsens, we're going to be called on in more incidents to provide troops for humanitarian causes . . . or where governments are toppled as a consequence of lack of food or water or energy or all the other things associated with natural disasters." I said all right. I studied it.
It's knowledge of the facts that makes people climate science realists.

Obama to speak at U.N. special session on global warming; Todd Stern testifies "Nothing the U.S. can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible…. President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration, are committed to action on this issue."

Posted: 10 Sep 2009 03:15 PM PDT

Obama's (first) big speech on global warming is going to come sooner than expected.

And all the nonsensical media reporting on how the administration is supposedly backing away from a sense of urgency on the climate issue — urgency on passing the clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill and getting a global deal — should be dispelled by reading today's House testimony from our top climate negotiator, Todd Stern (here, excerpted below).  Every word in that testimony is signed off on by the administration, so when Stern presses Congress for a bill ASAP and says Obama is committed to action, that comes from the White House.

E&E News PM reports:

President Obama will speak on global warming later this month during a special U.N. summit in New York where world leaders will try to jump-start talks on a deal that succeeds the Kyoto Protocol.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs today confirmed Obama's role in the Sept. 22 event that comes on the eve of general debate in the 64th session of the U.N. General Assembly.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called presidents and prime ministers together for the climate meeting in an attempt to "mobilize the political will and vision needed to reach an ambitious agreed outcome based on science at the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen."

Obama's role in the U.N. session is sure to spark widespread international attention, especially after eight years of resistance to significant steps on climate change under former President George W. Bush's administration.

Obama is expected to appear alongside a handful of other government leaders and climate activists during a morning session that opens the U.N. climate meeting.

I think he'll still need to give a more political speech before the Senate vote. When will that vote be? A key administration witness testified in front of a House Committee today that it really needs to be before a certain big international climate conference in Europe this December:

Also today, Obama's top climate change diplomat urged Congress to keep working toward passage of a comprehensive climate law, saying it would be a useful tool for U.S. diplomats as they try to reach agreement in Copenhagen.

"The most important thing is Congress send the president legislation," Todd Stern told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "It gives us the kind of credibility and leverage that'd be useful in the context of these negotiations."

Stern, the special envoy for climate change at the State Department, praised the House-passed global warming bill for the leverage it gives the United States as it talks to more than 180 other countries, including developing powerhouses China and India.

But Stern said that a final law would be even better, given the amount of interest focused on Obama as he sends his team to its first U.N. climate summit. "It'd be extremely helpful for the Senate to pass legislation before Copenhagen," Stern said. "I'm certainly doing everything I can to help make that happen."

At the same time, Stern said the Obama administration would adapt if Congress can't get through with its bill. "If legislation is moving on a good track that isn't passed yet, there will undoubtedly be ways to try and accommodate that," he said.

Stern's remarks to the House panel, and reporters afterward, reflect the difficult position the administration is in as officials push Congress on global warming at the same time as its full-court press on health care legislation. Senate action on the climate bill is expected to pick up later this month, though it is unclear how quickly senators will move.

The slow-going nature of the Senate debate was not lost on several House Democrats.

"The House has already acted," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). "We're three months away from Copenhagen. So I think it'd be important to either close the Senate down or get them to do something they don't like to do, which is vote on legislation."

Oh, snap!

Worth noting is that Stern doesn't pull his punches on the cost of inaction or the historical .  As he testified:

Moreover, the national security threats posed by climate change are real. As detailed in a recent front page story in the New York Times, discussing the rising concerns of the national security community, a world of uncontrolled climate change – with ever worsening storms, droughts, floods, the increased spread of disease; melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and more severe shortages of food and water – means a world of new and intensified security threats as millions of people are displaced, states are destabilized, and competition for resources intensifies.

In short, we have a lot of work to do this fall. The Congress has a crucial role to play on the domestic front. And internationally, we will be engaged full-out on all three of our fronts – the UN talks, the Major Economies Forum, and bilateral consultations with every relevant country and country block. President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration, are committed to action on this issue.

We are approaching this issue with the sense of urgency that it demands and are determined to do all we can to make the progress that is necessary to have a successful outcome in Copenhagen. Mr. Chairman, the world is going to make history over the course of the next months and years. We will either make it for the right reasons – because we found common ground and set ourselves on a path toward a new, sustainable, low-carbon model; or for the wrong reasons – because we blinked at the moment of truth and left our children and grandchildren to face the consequences. We have to get this right.

Hear!  Hear!

Energy and Global Warming News for September 10: Nukes will be part of Senate energy bill, Boxer says

Posted: 10 Sep 2009 02:40 PM PDT

File this under Duh!

Nukes Will Be Part of Senate Energy Bill, Boxer Says

Barbara Boxer, the chairwoman of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, said today "there will be a nuclear title in the bill," reports our colleague Siobhan Hughes at Dow Jones Newswires.

While nuclear power may not be the make-or-break issue for the Senate bill—the health care debate probably takes that honor—it is a crucial part of attracting Republican support for new energy measures. Whether it's enough is still anybody's guess.

Led by Tennessee's Lamar Alexander, Senate Republicans have been clamoring for more federal support for nuclear power. Indeed, Sen. Alexander doesn't miss a chance to tout nuclear power as an emissions-free power source on par with wind or solar power.

Ms. Boxer didn't elaborate on her comments, Dow Jones notes. Previously, she'd said that a higher cost for carbon–which would make coal-fired plants less attractive and nuclear plants more attractive–would do the trick. More support for nuclear power could take many shapes such as expanded federal loan guarantees or the inclusion of nuclear power in renewable-energy standards.

Yes, the nuclear title will mostly be MDT (Money Down the Toilet) stuff, but other than the taxpayers actually doling out $10 billion (or more!) per plant, I can't see many nukes being built no matter what is in the nuclear title because they just cost too damn much (see "Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid") — no matter what EPA and some other models say.  Nukes appear to be the minimum price for admission for some moderate Democrats and a few Republicans ("Lamar Alexander (R-TN) calls nuclear "the cheap clean energy solution," renews GOP call for 100 new nukes, which would cost some $1 trillion") — particularly McCain.

I take this as a good sign that Boxer is it really trying to start with a bill that could ultimately be passed.  I'd also expect a modified 'price collar', which could be both a useful addition to the bill and a key way to get more votes, depending on how it is written.

I don't, however, think you are going to see nuclear power included in the renewable energy standard — but you might see an addition to the standard that goes beyond the renewable and efficiency standard and includes low carbon energy.

$4.1 Billion in Orders for Thin-Film Solar

Since its founding in 2002, Nanosolar has raised a lot of money – half a billion dollars to date – and made a lot of noise about upending the solar industry, but the Silicon Valley start-up has been a bit vague on specifics about why it's the next big green thing.

On Wednesday, Nanosolar pulled back the curtain on its thin-film photovoltaic cell technology — which it claims is more efficient and less expensive than that of industry leader First Solar — and announced that it has secured $4.1 billion in orders for its solar panels.

Martin Roscheisen, Nanosolar's chief executive, said customers included solar power plant developers like NextLight, AES Solar and Beck Energy of Germany.

The typical Nanosolar farm will be between 2 and 20 megawatts in size, Mr. Roscheisen said in an e-mail message from Germany, where he was attending the opening of Nanosolar's new factory near Berlin. "This is a sweet spot in terms of ease of permitting and distributed deployment without having to tax the transmission infrastructure."

Spanish Fly: Iberdrola Raises $2 Billion for U.S. Clean-Energy Investment

Iberdrola, the big Spanish renewable-energy company, got plenty of U.S. government money to help its clean-energy push. Now, Iberdrola's got even more–$2 billion from a bond issue yesterday with institutional investors that's earmarked for even more clean-energy investment in the U.S.

The cash will strengthen Iberdrola's push to build more wind farms in the U.S., already the world's biggest market for wind power and where Iberdrola is the second-biggest operator after FPL's NextEra Energy.

The "principal objective" of the bond issue is "to keep growing in a market which [Iberdrola] considers strategic," the company said.

The money might also help Iberdrola fight off grumblings that foreign companies are scooping up U.S. taxpayer money meant to jumpstart the clean-energy revolution; Iberdrola snagged more than half of the first $500 million in clean-energy grants announced last week.

Iberdrola chairman Ignacio Sanchez Galan said in a video interview that the operation "closes the circle." "American capital, supported by the government's plans, is being invested in America and creating wealth and jobs in the country, thanks to Iberdrola."

According to a regulatory filing with the Spanish stock-market watchdog, Iberdrola sold two bond tranches to institutional investors. The first is a 5-year note paying 3.8% interest and the second is a 10-year note paying 5% interest. Iberdrola said the issue was more than three times oversubscribed.

Chicago Climate Exchange Seeks D.C. Muscle on Climate Bill

The Chicago Climate Exchange has hired its first Washington, D.C., lobbyists in an apparent effort to influence climate legislation.

According to congressional lobbying disclosures, the exchange this summer secured (pdf) both McLeod, Watkinson & Miller and Patton Boggs to play a role in climate legislation now pending in the Senate. Those looking out for the exchange's interests include former Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity Programs Robert Green.

Officials with the Chicago Climate Exchange, also known as CCX, declined requests for an interview.

"We're advocating for a well-designed cap-and-trade system in the United States," CCX spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said in an e-mailed statement regarding the lobbying hires.

But the political move by North America's largest trading system for greenhouse gas credits is sparking concern among analysts who say CCX might provide a blueprint for a mandatory federal cap-and-trade system. Many said they are worried by three years of news reports that the exchange often relies on inadequate methods of measuring and verifying emission reductions, particularly in the agriculture sector.

Farm groups and other supporters say the exchange does an excellent job of protecting the environment. But critics fear that the lobbying push, if successful, could weaken the integrity of any global warming bill emerging from Congress.

"The Chicago Climate Exchange could substantially undermine the value and accomplishments of an entire cap-and-trade program," said Kenneth Richards, an associate professor at Indiana University who has written about the exchange. "They could help create a system where we spend a lot of money and not get many reductions."

More in Europe Look to Carbon Tax to Curb Emissions

Economists have long seen a carbon tax as a good idea because of its simplicity: Polluters pay at a level that is set by decree.

But the idea never caught on widely in the United States or Europe, where governments jealously guard their autonomy on taxes. Industries lobbied for a market-based system called cap and trade instead, which they helped to design and from which some have profited handsomely.

Now, with only modest progress so far in meeting goals set for greenhouse gas reduction, the carbon tax may be making a comeback.

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, on Thursday unveiled details of a carbon tax that would raise the cost of driving a car or heating a home, all with the aim of encouraging conservation and thus reducing France's overall emissions. The tax was initially set at 17 euros, or $24.70, per ton of carbon dioxide emissions, Reuters reported.

The plan, widely previewed in recent weeks by French ministers, still must be debated by lawmakers. But it has already ignited a political storm among heavily taxed consumers, in a country that is just starting to emerge from recession.

Climate insecurity: Military implications must be part of Congress' discussion of climate change legislation

The debate over climate change legislation is beginning to heat up. The American Clean Energy and Security Act was passed by the House and is now before the Senate. The debate on this issue typically takes the form of environmental concerns about global warming pitted against economic fears about the cost of reducing greenhouse gases.. It is often framed in left-right terms. But as Americans think about whether to support this legislation, they should ponder the national security implications of climate change.

The recognition that global warming will increase the threats to our national security and place ever greater demands on our military is not new. The Bush administration acknowledged the issue in the 2006 National Security Strategy. A national security think tank comprising retired military officers, including Marine General Anthony Zinni, issued a report on the subject in 2007, identifying the various ways in which man-made climate change will directly affect national security.

Areas of the globe will be increasingly ravaged by drought, on the one hand, and flooding from extreme storms and rising sea levels on the other. These will cause mass migrations of refugees, the breakdown of societies and resulting conflict over reduced arable land, living space and other resources. The conflict in Sudan today is in part caused by the prolonged drought in the region. The massive movement of refugees that followed both the recent flooding in Bangladesh and the typhoon that hit Myanmar are other examples of such climate-related disruption. Climate change is seen as a "threat multiplier" that intensifies instability and sows the seeds of conflict.

Such instability and conflict will affect the United States. Armed conflict and massive political upheavals pose the risk of ever-wider hostilities and thus draw the world powers into the fray if only to contain it. Dislocation and instability will also lead to the failure of states, which become incubators for the development of other threats.. Consider Somalia in the 1990s and again today. The failed state of Afghanistan in the 1990s provided a base for the planning and launching of the Sept. 11 attacks. The initial failure of Afghanistan was not caused by global warming, but a study conducted for the National Intelligence Council predicts that climate change raises the risk of many more failed states in the future.

The Pentagon and the State Department increasingly factor these expected ramifications of man-made climate change into their strategic planning and policy development. But the impact on national security should also be part of the broader debate on emissions policy. The greater and more rapid the climate change, the more quickly these threats will emerge – and the greater will be the impact on our national security.

Groups want stronger rules in environmental bill

Two leading environmental groups and a large labor union joined in Trenton yesterday, urging New Jersey's congressional leaders to push stronger energy efficiency provisions in proposed federal climate change legislation, citing a new report that claims such measures could create 539,000 jobs in the next 20 years.

Simply making houses and businesses more energy efficient by 2030 would create 34,500 jobs in the Garden State alone, according to a study released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy or ACEEE, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit energy group that also said household energy costs will be reduced along with carbon emissions blamed for inducing global climate change.

The study was embraced by members of Environment New Jersey and the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club, who said more incentives for weatherizing homes and businesses should be included in provisions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a controversial energy bill which passed Congress in June and is before the Senate.

"This report is groundbreaking. It supports everything many of us have been saying about energy efficiency being the quickest and cleanest way to conserve energy, lower our use of fossil fuels and slow global warming," said Doug O'Malley, field director for Environment New Jersey. "We don't have to dream up a moon shot. We only need people and businesses to use better building materials and to make sure homes and business are more energy efficient."

Climate clean-up not up to developing states only: OPEC

Oil-producing and developing countries should not bear the brunt of efforts to clean up the environment, the OPEC crude producers' cartel insisted on Thursday, ahead of a major climate conference in December.

Developed countries "cannot shift the responsibility of cleaning the world or cleaning the environment on developing countries," OPEC secretary-general Abdullah El-Badri told a press conference following a late-night meeting of the cartel at its Vienna headquarters.

Ministers of oil-producing countries met in the Austrian capital late Wednesday night — due to the Muslim fast of Ramadan — to review oil production, but also discussed the upcoming UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December.

"We don't want them to penalise us because we are oil-producing countries," El-Badri said of the other world powers taking part in the landmark summit.

"Yes, the environment is important, we are concerned about the environment, we are living in the same world and the environment also concerns us but we don't want to be penalised," he added.

Environmental interests have long been at odds with those of oil producers, promoting renewable energies over the more polluting fossil fuels.

Brazil says U.S. climate goal unacceptable

Brazil's Environment Minister Carlos Minc said on Wednesday that U.S. targets for greenhouse gas emissions are unacceptably weak and that Brazil will place new restrictions on its huge farm sector to cut deforestation.

Brazil would also soon announce targets to substantially curb carbon emissions before a crucial global climate summit in Copenhagen in December, he said in an interview as part of the Reuters' Climate Change and Alternative Energy Summit.

Criticizing the U.S. administration's stated target of returning to its 1990 level of emissions by 2020, Minc said: "We don't accept that, it's very poor."

"They have to come closer to something beyond a 20 percent reduction," he said.

The South American nation is expected to play a key role in negotiations at the Copenhagen summit that will seek to frame a new international treaty on climate change. The United Nations climate talks aim to reach agreement on a post-Kyoto pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are blamed for global warming.

Minc said he was moderately optimistic but that a deal would not be easy.

EIA: Clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would make America more energy independent, cutting U.S. foreign oil bill $650 billion through 2030, saving $5,600 per household

Posted: 10 Sep 2009 10:37 AM PDT

EIA Oil dollar savings

Although the House-passed clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill doesn't have a big focus on the transportation sector, it does achieve real benefits in oil savings at low cost (see "EIA analysis of climate bill finds 23 cents a day cost to families, massive retirement of dirty coal plants and 119 GW of new renewables by 2030 — plus a million barrels a day oil savings").  Some people have asked me for more detail on this, which I provide courtesy of this guest post from Jeremy Symons, Senior Vice President, Conservation and Education, National Wildlife Federation (bio here).

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA's) recent analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) includes the first government estimates of the legislation's impact directly on oil imports.  A number of models, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have determined that ACES would save significant amounts of oil, but EIA is the first to project the specific impact on oil imports so that we can more directly assess the security and financial implications.

Overall oil imports would decline by 590,000 barrels per day by the year 2020 under ACES, according to EIA .  This is roughly equivalent to the total amount of oil we imported from Iraq in 2008 (620,000 barrels per day).  Over the next twenty years, America would save $650 billion on foreign oil (cumulatively through 2030).  This is in constant 2007 dollars, and is calculated by applying EIA's forecast of oil prices to EIA's projected savings in oil imports.

ACES has many features to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, including strong investments to promote vehicle battery technologies and household smart grid connections to power our cars with electricity.  EIA acknowledges that it wasn't able to model a number of these features, so the actual oil savings would likely be larger.

[JR:  I'd add that EIA, unlike the IEA doesn't get peak oil (see World's top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: "We have to leave oil before oil leaves us").  So it lowballs future prices.  You can probably increase the numbers in this psot 50% for actual savings.]

In the meantime, the American Petroleum Institute (API) has reached new heights in misinformation by claiming that oil imports of refined oil products would go up under ACES.  That is, we might import less crude oil but we will have to import more diesel or gasoline.  Let's set the record straight:  EIA's study of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act determined that the bill would reduce imports of refined oil products by 20% by the year 2025.  Environmental Defense Fund has valuable information on this topic at http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/08/25/api-misses-the-mark-why-refineries-will-do-just-fine-under-aces/ — see also (see "Even fantasy-filled API study finds no significant impact of climate bill on US refining").

EIA Oil savings