Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Climate Progress


Climate Progress


Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO and occasional voter, wants to be governor of California so she can end its leadership in clean energy and destroy its climate.

Posted: 06 Oct 2009 09:07 AM PDT

AB32Since failing to vote gets more attention than wanting to suspend California's climate and clean energy laws, a lot of people probably know this story:

Meg Whitman, the fourth richest woman in California, thinks she should be governor, presumably because the three richer women are busy. She freely admits that this idea just popped into her head about 18 months ago. Before then she wasn't a member of any party and hadn't even voted very often. That's the kind of delightful English-style eccentric she is. She might as well have decided she was Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.

Then a funny thing happened to another part of her brain, the area where memories are stored: It became less and less clear if she had voted before 2002 — she claimed she had — or if she had ever registered as a Republican in another state — another claim she'd made and frequently repeated.

No one had seen any evidence to support either assertion. A reporter asked Multipersonality Meg if she could help.

"Go find it," Meg snapped.

For what happened next, read the rest of the HuffPost piece, "An Open Letter from Meg Whitman About Voting."

Less well known is her lack of civic responsibility when it comes to all Californians — and their children and grandchildren. As fellow candidate for Governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, explained in a September 24th piece:

strong>Meg Whitman penned an op-ed last week stating she'd suspend California's landmark climate-change legislation, AB32, on her first day if elected governor. This is backwards thinking, and I disagree.

Fellow Californian and Nobel Prize winner Energy Secretary Steven Chu has already explained what could happens to the state if we fail to adopt aggressive emissions reduction strategies (many of which have been pioneered by the state):  "Wake up," America, "we're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California."

Experts estimate that the four largest clean-energy industries (solar, wind, biofuels, and fuel-cell) will have combined annual revenues of $255 billion by the middle of the next decade. The question isn't whether the world will move towards cleaner living – the question is how soon this trend will take hold.

There is no better, more fertile place in the United States for green technology and green-collar jobs to take shape than California.

California's challenge is competitiveness, grasping as much of the share of these markets as possible by being the industry leader in greenhouse gas abatement technology. To date, we've done a great job – California captured $6.6 billion in green capital between 2006-2008. And all these start-ups need workers; so green jobs have the potential to be for California what the defense industry was in 1980s.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust, between 1997 and 2007, "clean energy spurred the opening of 10,209 businesses with 125,390 jobs in California."

That's 125,000 people working on protecting our environment and earning family-sustaining wages at the same time. And all these new jobs came about before AB32 really kicked in! The potential employment upside to AB32 is staggering. Growth in green-collar jobs outpaced overall job growth nationwide by 250 percent – astounding.

Clearly, being on the cutting edge of innovation is a net positive for California's economy, not a negative. As we mark the three-year anniversary of AB32's signing today, we should acknowledge that its oft-vilified targets are not only achievable but also actually good for California's economy. The Governor's own Climate Action Team reported back in 2006 that AB32 would provide "billions of dollars in savings for businesses and residents, and tens of thousands of new jobs by 2020." It's both affordable and plausible.

We're proving as much in San Francisco. Our Local-Global Climate Action Plan sets the ambitious target of reducing our greenhouse gas levels 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Well, we've already achieved a 5 percent reduction below 1990 levels, and we've still got a few more years to get all the way to 20 percent.

sfcityhallOur focus on green industries has reaped benefits for our local economy. We have the eighth-lowest unemployment rate in California. New cleantech companies are opening their doors week after week.

We accomplished this growth by ensuring that our city offered an affordable business climate and the best-trained workforce in America. Much as we did in San Francisco, we need development policies that co-equally concentrate on growing business and developing the workforce.

California should explore the feasibility of two-year payroll tax exemptions for new hires in cleantech, modeled after the state's existing hiring credits – instead of targeting groups of workers or areas, we'll focus on hiring into industries. We need pointed business-attraction strategies to aid in the formation of cleantech clusters. Let's be aggressive in pursuing green industry startups and companies looking to relocate.

On the jobs side, our state needs cutting-edge workforce development programs, including clean-industry apprenticeships, job-placement assistance, tuition subsidies, and state policies to encourage growth in green industries.

I'm excited about the potential of the emerging green economy for California, both in economic growth through venture capital and entrepreneurship as well as the vast number of jobs we stand to create. I believe our fundamental and stark difference of opinion on AB32 merits a discussion in a public forum, so today I am inviting candidate Whitman to participate in this debate. I encourage her to accept so the voters of California can get a clear view of our positions on this vital issue.

At this critical juncture, we need leadership that'll drive economic growth through green-collar industry development, not tired old jobs vs. the environment rhetoric that ignores the vast growth potential of cleantech in California. I look forward to pursue an ambitious green collar jobs strategy for the state, just as we've managed to successfully do in the City and County of San Francisco.

Energy and Global Warming News for October 6: Europe to throw $73 billion behind energy research; Obama orders federal government to cut emissions

Posted: 06 Oct 2009 08:09 AM PDT

Here's more proof that "The only way for the U.S. to win the clean energy race is to pass the clean energy bill":

Europe to throw $73 billion behind energy research

Europe will this week launch a campaign to triple funding for energy research to 8 billion euros ($11.7 billion) a year in a technology race with Japan and the United States, a draft document shows.

Solar power should get 16 billion euros over the next decade and up to 30 energy-sipping "Smart Cities" should be built with the backing of around 11 billion euros, added the report by the European Union's executive, the European Commission.

In total, at least 50 billion euros of additional funding is seen over the next 10 years to ensure a wide range of technology emerges to help the EU meet its goal of cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050.

"We need to stimulate our best brains to push back the frontiers of science in materials, in chemistry and physics, in nanotechnology and biotechnology, to find new and better ways of producing and consuming energy," says the draft obtained by Reuters ahead of the launch on Wednesday.

"We can not sit back and wait for such potentially game changing breakthroughs to emerge from laboratories and make the often long and arduous journey to market," it adds.

The report looks at how much funding is needed, rather than how businesses and the EU's 27 member countries would find the money as they emerge from the biggest downturn since the second world war.

But earlier Commission proposals for funding energy projects, such as the 4 billion euros "European Economic Recovery Plan" have made swift progress this year and are now in the later stages of debate by EU ambassadors.

Companies ranging from Germany's E.ON to Spain's Gamesa look set to benefit.

Wind energy research should get 6 billion euros over the next decade, nuclear research should get 7 billion euros and energy from biomass and other waste 9 billion.

There should also be 13 billion euros for innovative "carbon capture and storage" technology to trap carbon dioxide from power stations and bury it underground.

Obama orders federal government to cut emissions

President Barack Obama ordered federal agencies on Monday to set a goal within 90 days for cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, the White House said, aiming to "lead by example" in fighting climate change.

The new executive order, signed by the president, mandates agencies across the federal government to "measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets," the White House said in a statement.

Other environmental measures such as reducing petroleum use in vehicle fleets by 30 percent by 2020, improving efficiency f water usage by 2020, and increasing rates of recycling by 2015 were also included in the order.

"The federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," Obama said in a statement.

Recession Eases Effort to Protect Climate, IEA Says

The global economic crisis has made it easier to halt the increase in greenhouse gases released by power plants, factories and cars through 2020, the International Energy Agency said in a revision of its forecasts from November.

Annual emissions from energy use may peak at 30.9 billion tons "just before" 2020, assuming nations adopt climate- protection measures, the Paris-based agency said today in a report presented to United Nations climate negotiators in Bangkok. That's 4.9 percent less than the previous estimate of a 32.5 billion-ton peak in 2020 for the same scenario.

Slowing the accumulation of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide, which scientists blame for climate change, is central to climate-protection talks this week in Thailand. Global CO2 discharges may drop at a record pace of as much as 3 percent this year as the recession cuts demand for power, the energy adviser to 28 countries said. That compared with an historical average of 3 percent annual growth.

"Governments should see that if we don't make use of this very unique window of opportunity, it could cost them much more in the future," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, said in an interview in Bangkok today. "The later we start, the more costly it will be and the less achievable it will be from an economic and political point of view."

Two years of climate talks have stalled as developed nations wrangle over 2020 emission limits. Developing nations said they are waiting for richer countries, which are responsible for most of the gases put into the atmosphere over the last century, to cut their output first.

Biofuels Producers Warn They Are Going to Fall Far Short of Federal Mandates

The emerging cellulosic biofuel industry, stung by frozen credit markets, ineffective federal loan programs and lagging federal policies, will fall far short of mandated production volumes over the next few years.

U.S. EPA is now pushing to implement a new renewable fuels standard (RFS) that will ramp up to 21 billion gallons of mandated cellulosic and advanced biofuels use by 2022, provided that fuels meet specified greenhouse gas reduction thresholds — and that enough gallons can reach the market.

"The current economic climate almost makes the RFS a moot point for the time being," said Matt Carr, policy director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

His organization estimated last month that 2010 volumes will, optimistically, reach 12 million gallons, far short of the 100-million-gallon mandate that year. Those shortages will also ripple into later years, such that even by 2013, meeting the 1 billion gallons required will be a stretch.

EPA, meanwhile, is working to finalize the mandate by the end of this year to take effect in 2010, but says it is also considering delaying the rules by as much as a year, as the petroleum refining and blending industry is urging. The comment period on its proposal closed in September.

These are the harsh realities faced by producers that have yet to open a commercial-scale facility — even as controversy continues to swirl around the RFS, which in addition allows for 15 billion gallons of conventional corn-based ethanol.

In the House-passed climate bill, farm state lawmakers succeeded in inserting a provision temporarily stripping EPA's authority to calculate the increases in greenhouse gas emissions caused by land-clearing abroad, as fuel based on food replaces U.S.-grown food grains.

Climate and hydrogen car advocate gets almost everything wrong about plug-in cars

Posted: 06 Oct 2009 07:49 AM PDT

Once upon a time, some serious people used to believe that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) might have a snowball's chance in hell of being a practical and affordable climate strategy in our lifetime.  Those very sincere people were used by the car companies and Bush Administration as part of a strategy to oppose or delay the introduction of more viable alternative fuel strategies, in particular electric cars — see, for instance, the movie "Who killed the electric car?"

That isn't to say pure EVs were slam dunks as successful mass-market consumer vehicles, particularly with the technology of the 1980s and even 1990s.  HFCVs, however, required multiple technological (and other) miracles to succeed and every plausible competitor, including EVs, to fail first (see "Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a dead end from a technological, practical, and climate perspective" and "The car of the perpetual future" — The Economist agrees with Climate Progress on hydrogen").  That is but one reason the absurdly expensive infrastructure will never be built — nor has any independent group ever proposed a plausible scenario under which the infrastructure would be built.  And that's the fundamental hydrogen cars will not be practical or a cost-effective climate strategy in your lifetime.

Under the leadership of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California briefly flirted with a serious investment in hydrogen cars and infrastructure — the Hydrogen Highway.  A driving force for that alliterative but ill-fated effort was Terry Tamminen, who "headed California's Environmental Protection Agency and was Cabinet Secretary and Chief Policy Advisor" to Schwarzenegger, who is now "the Cullman Senior Fellow for Climate Change and Director of the Climate Policy Program at the New America Foundation" and author of a recent but outdated attack, "The Myth of Battery Cars" debunked below.

The California legislature in particular sped away from the Hydrogen Highway effort once it became clear that both the fueling station and the cars were insanely expensive and not terribly practical (see "California Hydrogen Highway R.I.P.")

Today, with rapidly advancing battery and related technology, we know that pure EVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are a core climate solution since electric drives are more efficient, easily powered by carbon-free energy and indeed far cheaper to operate per mile than gasoline (or hydrogen), even when running on renewable power. And they are the key alt-fuel strategy needed to deal with the energy/economic security threat of rising dependence on imported oil and the inevitably grim impacts of peak oil (see "Why electricity is the only alternative fuel that can lead to energy independence").  That is why pretty much every car company in the world will be introducing one or more models of PHEVs or EVs in the next 2 to 4 years, but we still don't have a single commercial HFCV anywhere near production (see L.A. Times: "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars." Duh.).

In particular, a renewable-energy-based hydrogen fueling system capable of handling even half the cars and light trucks on the road would cost many hundreds of billions of dollars.  And it would have a cost of avoided carbon dioxide of more than $600 a metric ton, which is more than a factor of ten higher than most other strategies being considered today.  Also, the total well-to-wheels efficiency with which a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might utilize renewable electricity is roughly 20% (although that number could rise to 25% or a little higher with the kind of multiple technology breakthroughs required to enable a hydrogen economy).  The well-to-wheels efficiency of charging an onboard battery and then discharging it to run an electric motor in a PHEV or EV, however, is 80% (and could be higher in the future)—four times more efficient than current hydrogen fuel cell vehicle pathways.

If you care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle efficiency is certainly the top strategy (along with technologies to minimize or avoid car-based transportation), but EVs and PHEVs are going to be the cornerstone alternative fuel vehicle technology.  That's why is it so surprising that Tamminen — Director of the Climate Policy Program at the New America Foundation — would attack them.  The rest of this post is a guest debunking by my friend Felix Kramer, founder of Calcars.org and author of previous guest posts such as "Everything you could want to know about the plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle announcements at the 2009 Detroit auto show."

Rebutting Mr. Tamminen's Battery Electric Car 'Myths'
By Felix Kramer

We at The California Cars Initiative (and our colleagues at Plug In America and elsewhere), were surprised to see the strong critique of plug-in vehicles at the website of the influential and usually eminently reasonable New America Foundation. In his posting, "The Myth of Battery Cars" NAF Senior Fellow Terry Tamminen, who serves as its Director of its Climate Policy Program, starts off saying "it's time to dump the battery-powered car in the same policy landfill as corn-based ethanol, and he concludes with "battery cars are no more viable at this time for solving our oil addiction on a large-scale basis than corn-based ethanol."

In between he cites multiple objections and analyses many of which are uniformed or misinformed. His approach is both surprising and not unexpected.

On the surprising side, he knows better. In his years at Environment Now! and then as head of the California Environmental Protection Agency, he saw how the objections to electric vehicles (EVs) gradually fell away, and how plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) emerged as a new solution that provides a practical near-term transition for the automotive fleet. We welcomed him at the launching meeting of Plug In Bay Area in August 2006 http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/501.html where he endorsed PHEVs as "our immediate future" (in contrast to other longer-term solutions). And in his popular 2006 book, "Lives Per Gallon," he mentions EVs two dozen times. Recounting the story of the gutting of California's Zero Emissions (ZEV) Mandate, he cited their "value and practicality."

On the expected side, while publicly embracing "silver buckshot" — ecumenically pursue all solutions — Tamminen has always seen the future as hydrogen-powered. In California, he succeeded Alan Lloyd as the chief cheerleader for a "Hydrogen Highway" infrastructure, and for a massive skew in government regulations and support for fuel-cell vehicles over plug-ins. Since leaving state government, he's made the case in Canada and many other countries. Now the vehemence of his article is reflective of his remaining consistent to his vision, even as one-time allies at federal and California elected officials and energy/transportation agencies, and advocates such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Institute, have acknowledged that this solution remains a decade away and that we can get there quicker with plug-ins.

To take his points in order:

1. Batteries will always be too heavy; materials are scarce and toxic. This sounds like a comment from before 2006. Batteries are improving steadily in "energy density" and cost — by 7-15% a year, with occasional faster leaps as technologies shift. Automaker and battery makers have concluded that the supposed "lithium shortage" doesn't exist. Nickel-metal hydride and lithium batteries are approved for landfill (not toxic) and can be recycled. The battery and motor of an EV is not always heavier than the larger engine and gas tank while you benefit from up to four times greater efficiency of an electric motor over and internal combustion engine.

2. We'll need a giant new infrastructure; charging takes too long; we'll get overloads and blackouts unless we spend billions of dollars to upgrade the power grid. Plug-in hybrids need no new infrastructure. According to a study from the Pacific National Lab, today's grid has capacity to recharge 84% of today's cars if they all plugged at night. This applies to all-electric vehicles charging at night as well, which will be true for most vehicles used as families' second cars. Price signals will disincentivize daytime charging on late summer afternoons when the grid is at capacity. And the Tesla Roadster's high-power charger takes under four, not eight hours to recharge http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/faqs.php .

3. Range matters: yes, most average commutes are 30-40 miles/day, but cars need to be able to drive 300 miles between refills. And people who live in apartments don't have access to a charger. PHEVS l have that range by definition: when the battery is depleted the engine powers the car for hundreds of miles. The forthcoming Chevy Volt 40-mile electric range matches the drive cycle of 78% of vehicles. Tamminen has forgotten his approving quotation (page 152 of Lives Per Gallon) of Ed Begley, Jr. saying "The detractors of electric vehicles are right. Given their limited range, they can only meet the needs of 90 percent of the population." The first buyers of plug-in cars may be drivers with garages, but the charging infrastructure is starting to arrive: The New York Times Real Estate Section reports that building management company executives say they want to be ready for the coming wave of customer demand to charge in their high-rise apartments: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/ 08/ 30/ realestate/ 30posting.html .

4. Only small, light cars can be battery powered. While it is true that until recently, most EVs were small and underpowered, the coming wave of luxury sports cars has proven that EVs can outperform gasoline cars. The vehicles continue to be designed to be as aerodynamic as possible because that makes sense for any vehicle however it's powered. And Tamminen gets the size issue exactly wrong. The larger vehicles have plenty of room for batteries and, and they're the gas-gulpers. IF you switch around the usual way of looking at miles per gallon into gallons per mile, this becomes obvious. Our 50 MPG Priuses converted to 100 MPG PHEVS use 1 gallon per hundred miles instead of 2–saving 1 gallon. A 15 MPG truck that becomes a 45 MPG PHEV saves over 5 gallons per hundred miles. That's why CalCars is now focusing largely on pickups, SUVs and trucks, including conversions of already-built vehicles.

5. Plug-in cars are only as clean as the electricity they run on. This is true, but on today's national grid (50% coal), an electric mile produces only half the CO2 of a gasoline mile. Tamminen acknowledges this is true for hydrogen as well…not entirely, since some hydrogen (an energy carrier, not a source) comes from reforming natural gas, which is still high in CO2. For hydrogen made electrically from water, multiple studies have shown the original electricity used to make the fuel carries a vehicle three to four times further if it's put directly into a battery rather than cycled through hydrolysis, fuel transportation, compression, and fuel cells before they get to the electric motor that powers the car. If we ever get hydrogen created directly from the sun and algae, we'll still be decades away from having a full infrastructure for its use.

6. Plug-in advocates aren't looking at the cost of the entire infrastructure, just at the end use. Tamminen forgets about the ability of PHEVs and many EVs to come to the market with no new infrastructure. In contrast to this, all the hydrogen vehicles he so strongly supports need a new infrastructure, and it's largely because of that fact that Energy Secretary Steve Chu and may others have concluded that even if multiple technical and cost issues involving hydrogen and fuel cells are solved, other solutions that are much closer are more deserving of support and incentives. Some day we might have hydrogen providing the range extension fuel for PHEVs, but even cellulosic ethanol is generally seen as arriving far sooner than hydrogen.

The biggest refutation of Tamminen comes from the growing stampede among national governments and automakers to bring plug-in cars to market. They are starting with substantial tax incentives until costs decline with economies of scale — but the gap needed to bridge is in the $5-$10,000 range, one-tenth or less the amount needed to subsidize Tamminen's preferred hydrogen cars.

Good resources for this subject include: the CalCars FAQ, the page in Internal Combustion Engine Conversions http://www.calcars.org/ice-conversions.html and the Plug In America FAQ

For more debunking, see Terry Tamminen is "mythtaken."

Apple shuffles off the nano-Chamber of Commerce over its 'frustrating' global warming denialism.

Posted: 06 Oct 2009 05:57 AM PDT

The US Chamber of Overstated Horrors has been hemorrhaging credibility and members since it blurted out its true agenda with its Luddite call for "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on global warming.   The Chamber is shrinking faster than the size of Apple Computer's products.

Pacific Gas & Energy, Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Exelon have already left, leading to more desperate lies from the Chamber, which falsely claimed "We've never questioned the science behind global warming."

The NY Times reports yesterday that the latest company to come to its senses is Apple.  The innovative tech giant issued a blunt letter saying:

apple_logo_(640x480)"We strongly object to the chamber's recent comments opposing the E.P.A.'s effort to limit greenhouse gases," wrote Catherine A. Novelli, the vice-president of worldwide government affairs at Apple, in a letter dated today and addressed to Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the chamber. Click here to read the letter.

"Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort," Ms. Novelli continued.

Apple's resignation was effective immediately, the letter said. The move comes a few weeks after Apple expanded the environmental disclosures on its products.

Read the full letter here.

H/t to Think Progress and NRDC's Pete Altman who has this nice list:

Quit US Chamber: Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, Apple.

Quit US Chamber Board: Nike.

Says Chamber doesn't represent their views on climate: Johnson&Johnson, General Electric, San Jose Chamber of Commerce.

The video above is from Progressive media.

Memo to WashPost, George Will: Cassandra was right

Posted: 05 Oct 2009 06:50 PM PDT

http://www.stevensaylor.com/BookshopDVDcovers/TrojanHorsePosterRepair.jpg

George Will and the editorial page editors at the Washington Post proved a long time ago they don't know science (see "The Post, abandoning any journalistic standards, lets George Will publish a third time global warming lies debunked on its own pages").  And they don't do any fact-checking (see WashPost op-ed page remains the home of un-fact-checked disinformation about clean energy and global warming).

But as a letter to the editor pointed out, they don't know mythology either.  I was so focused on critiquing the substance of the original post (here and here), I missed the unintentional inanity of the headline, "Cooling Down the Cassandras," and Will's final line:

Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their predictions lest they commit what climate alarmists consider the unpardonable faux pas of denying that the world is coming to an end.

Other than not knowing the science or doing basic fact-checking, the faux pas is pretending to be an intellectual while not even knowing you've used a mythological metaphor containing a hidden army that destroys your whole damn message.   Cassandra famously had the gift of prophecy but the curse of not being believed, with archetypally tragic results:

While Cassandra foresaw the destruction of Troy (she warned the Trojans about the Trojan Horse, the death of Agamemnon, and her own demise), she was unable to do anything to forestall these tragedies since they did not believe her.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8r5KcavfltE/SnXMMFLnbKI/AAAAAAAAFcY/2mAGbSTDz9g/s400/cassandra3125.jpg

So yes, climate scientists have become Cassandras — and Will and WashPost's Fred Hiatt are the ones blind to the obvious dangers, the ones trying to drown out the warmings of those who are trying to warn about impending catastrophe.

Here's the letter, by Jim Mcelfish, Senior Attorney, Environmental Law Institute  Washington:

George F. Will used his Oct. 1 column to deride government officials and scientists warning of the consequences of global warming, and he suggested that these climate-change "Cassandras" slow down and not cater to "alarmists."  Mr. Will has perhaps forgotten his classics. Cassandra, prophetess of Troy, was always right when she sounded the alarm but was never believed by those with power to avert disaster.

Related Posts:

Senate Climate Debate: Calling All Green Dog Dems

Posted: 05 Oct 2009 05:18 PM PDT

http://dreamdogsart.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/28/green_dog_sculpture_06.jpgNow that John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have introduced their climate bill in the U.S. Senate, this fall will be all about changing canine colors.  To get the 60 votes they need to pass a bill, progressive Democrats will be trying to turn Blue Dog Democrats into Green Dog Democrats.

Welcome to the dog days of autumn.  Watch for progressives to offer milk bones, kibbles and bits to coax their more conservative colleagues into commitments that conscience alone should be sufficient to dictate.

The challenge for leaders in the Senate, as it was in the House, will be to prevent the climate bill from being negotiated into something far less than required to reinvent the American economy and reverse our greenhouse gas emissions, and to do both quickly.

Whether Senate leaders succeed in producing public policy that averts climate disaster will depend in large part on how they frame the debate. Here are three suggestions:

First,  the fence-sitters in Congress must be made to understand that climate change is not a matter of belief and it is not something we can bargain away. Climate change is a matter of physics and chemistry and associated science. We might quibble about precisely what global warming will do to us and how quickly it will happen. But the bedrock reality, already evident in the world around us, is that the atmosphere, the oceans and other natural systems vital to life  have reached the limits of their tolerance of economic growth at any cost. They can't absorb more damage, not without making the planet a very unpleasant place for life as we know it.

This may be a difficult fact for many Senators to accept. Congress usually is an auction house and a horse-trading arena. But carbon emissions are to the atmosphere what virulent cancer cells are to the body. We can't wish them away. We can't bargain with them. If we want to survive, we must treat them as quickly and aggressively as we are able, with the very best tools we have.

Second, there is no such thing as business as usual. Senators who want to protect their constituents from change, including rust belt and fossil energy industries, are voting for an outcome that cannot happen. Senators who tell their constituents they can continue living and doing business in the old carbon-intensive economy are not leading. They are pandering.

The reality is, we face a stark choice between two futures. One is a future of unmitigated climate change that proves disastrous to ecosystems, our economy, our national security, our public health and our public debt as government at all levels struggles to deal with a nation of Katrinas – not just hurricanes, but extreme weather events, severe drought, the loss of coastal communities and infrastructure, killer heat waves, more pests and diseases, and so on. That is the future we will create by default if we try to prolong business as usual.

In the second future we still will see evidence of climate change – we've made that inevitable by refusing to act earlier – but we will have made the transition to an economy powered by clean resources and technologies, in which we have stopped relying on foreign and finite fuels, and in which sound environmental practice and socially responsible behavior are ingrained in all we do.

Third, we are not an island.  We have been isolationists many times in our history. In the context of climate change, for example, the Senate decided during the Clinton years that the United States would stand alone in refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.  But climate change makes clear that one nation's pollution is every nation's problem. We are interconnected with other societies and nations in a global economy, a global energy market, and a planetary commons.

As the military establishment has concluded, poverty, dislocation and unrest in any part of the world have national security implications for the United States. That is especially true with climate change, which will destabilize some of the most volatile regions of the world.

Because we live in an interconnected world, it is in the self-interest of rich nations to help poor nations satisfy the basic needs of their people with environmentally benign resources and behaviors.  Technical and monetary assistance to the developing world – one of the sticking points in reaching an international climate deal — is not charity; it is necessary for our mutual assured survival.

Reuters predicts this will be a "labor intensive" fall for progressives as they try to figure out how to craft a climate bill that gets the votes of moderates and conservatives. For example, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio reportedly wants language that protects steel, glass, paper, aluminum and other energy-intensive industries.

Coal-state Senators want to protect the industries that produce, haul and burn the most carbon-intensive and dirtiest of fossil fuels. For example – again according to Reuters – Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, where mining companies are blowing up mountains, destroying streams and rivers and polluting groundwater for cheap coal, wants a bill whose carbon-cutting goals are relaxed enough to buy time for the development of carbon capture and storage technologies. Democratic Sen. John Tester of Montana also wants a bill that bets heavily on clean coal technology to protect the mining industry in his state.

But by most estimates, clean coal technology is a decade or more away, if it proves plausible at all.  Leading climate scientists tell us that carbon emissions from industrial nations like the U.S. must peak around 2015-2017 and begin a rapid decline. We don't have time to relax our timetable for emission reductions or to wait for untested new technologies to save us.

In these new frames, policy makers must start asking different questions.

The question Senators should be asking is not "How will I protect my current industries?" It's "How can I help the industries and workers of the old economy make the transition to the new energy economy, as rapidly and seamlessly as possible?"

The question is not "How long will our coal and oil supplies last?" It's "How much of these fuels can the atmosphere stand, and how quickly can we move away from them?"

The question is not "Why should we send more money to developing nations?"  It is  "What can we do to help end extreme poverty around the world so that we create greater security, greater economic and environmental stability, fewer resource conflicts, and vast new markets for green goods and services?"

As they decide which of our two futures they will support, Senators should dust off the landmark study issued last June by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the work of 13 federal agencies. Although it was the first major climate report of the Obama Administration, its conclusions are based on science reports produced by the Bush Administration.

Overall, the report concludes that climate change already is reshaping our lives in the United States with warmer winters, heavier downpours, rising sea levels and drought.  The report goes on to offer federal scientists' best predictions of what will happen region by region if we try to continue business as usual. Here is a sample:

Southwest: Climate change will produce more intensive drought in this region, resulting in increasingly scarce water supplies and conflicts for water between industries, agriculture and cities. Climate change will result in higher temperatures and invasive species that "accelerate transformation of the landscape"; more flooding with risks to people, infrastructure and ecosystems; and a disruption of the region's unique tourism and recreation industries. Sen. McCain should keep this in mind as he weighs whether his advocacy for more nuclear power will stand in the way of his vote for a strong climate bill.

Great Plains:   If Sens. Dorgan and Tester oppose a strong climate bill, they will in effect support more droughts and disappearing water resources in their region. Most of the region's water comes from the High Plains aquifer, where withdrawals already outpace recharge. Climate-induced drought and faster evaporation rates will lead to more stress on this vital resource. As a result of this stress and higher temperatures, agriculture, which covers 70 percent of the Great Plains states, will suffer declining productivity.

Midwest: Without forceful action against climate change, Sen. Brown's region will suffer more frequent, severe and longer-lasting heat waves. The water level in the Great Lakes will decline, affecting shipping, beaches, ecosystems and infrastructure. The region will experience bigger and more intense rainfalls leading to more flooding, along with periods of water deficits. Flooding will endanger local economies, public health and infrastructure. Agriculture will be hurt. Livestock production will become more costly due to heat, while spring flooding will delay planting seasons. Insect pests and weeds will increase.

Southeast: Average summer temperatures will increase 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit under a high-emissions scenario, stressing people, animals, plants and the built environment. Pavement and rail lines will buckle from the heat.  Diminishing water supplies are "very likely" to affect the regional economy and its natural systems, and lead to more water conflicts between states. Southeastern coastal states will experience more intense hurricanes (higher wind speeds, more rain and bigger storm surges) due to rising ocean temperatures and sea levels.. Low-lying areas, including some communities, will be inundated more frequently, some permanently. The region will suffer major disruptions to its ecosystems, along with the benefits those systems provide. It will be transformed from the Sun Belt to the Heat Belt, adversely affecting quality of life in the region and resulting in a decrease in population.

Northeast: Warming temperatures will shift maple syrup production from the United States to Canada. Dairy and fruit production will diminish, too, as well as lobster and cod fisheries.  The length of the snow season will be cut in half across much of the region. Winter sports, which now contribute $7.6 billion annually to the region, will be hurt; only one part of the region, farthest north, will be able to support a viable ski industry. As in other regions, hotter temperature and poorer air quality will cause problems for human health, particularly in cities.

Other Coastal States: Sea level rise already has resulted in the loss of 1,900 square miles of coastal wetlands in Louisiana during the past century, weakening the Gulf Coast's natural buffer against hurricanes. Coastal Senators who oppose strong climate action will sentence their constituents to significant increases in sea levels that endanger homes, communities, roads, energy facilities and other infrastructure in low-lying and subsiding areas. For example, about 2,400 miles of roads and 250 miles of freight rail lines could be inundated along the Gulf Cost alone. Coastal dead zones will increase in size and intensity in the Gulf and the Chesapeake Bay.

It should be apparent that there is no business as usual. There is no status quo. There are only two futures, one bleak and dangerous, the other challenging but still fundamentally bright and hopeful.  Senators will have to choose which future they support and which America they represent: a no-can-do nation that fails to rise to the preeminent challenge of our time, or a can-do nation that mobilizes its energy, genius and patriotism to remake the country so that it prospers in the 21st Century.

Senators who worry about the impact of higher fossil energy prices on businesses and families vastly underestimate the power of clean energy technologies, the coping skills and innovative capacity of the American people, and the willingness of their countrymen to pitch in for our common global good.

We face two futures, but there is only one responsible choice. Let that be the framework in which climate action is debated in the weeks to come.

– Bill Becker

Energy and Global Warming News for October 5: U.S. mayors pledge to cut carbon emisions

Posted: 05 Oct 2009 11:25 AM PDT

1,000 mayors agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

When Greg Nickels became Seattle's mayor in 2002, global warming was hardly at the top of the municipal agenda.

New York's World Trade Center had been attacked, and officials had to figure out how to protect their own city from terrorism. Boeing was laying off 30,000 machinists, so there was the declining regional economy to deal with. Surely the federal government would worry about climate change.

Then came the winter of 2004, when the Cascade Mountains snowpack was so disastrously low that ski resorts — facing their worst year on record — laid off most of their employees. The same snow, when it melts, is what generates much of the Northwest's electricity. "It was serious. It was truly serious," Nickels said. "It became clear to me that global warming was not something off in the future, not far away, but something that was here and now."

With the U.S. still not a signatory to the international Kyoto climate change accord, Nickels began talking to other mayors about halting carbon emissions in the cities — where the majority of Americans live, drive cars, operate factories, turn on lights and use power. On Friday, as outgoing president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he announced that 1,000 mayors across the country had signed on to a pact to meet the Kyoto protocol targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They also will urge the federal government and the states to cut emissions by 7% from 1990 levels by 2012.

Climate change will lead to massive decline in crop yield

A study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), indicates that climate change would hit developing countries the hardest, leading to massive decline in crop yields and production. The study conducted by the American research think-tank for sustainable solutions to ending hunger and poverty said 25 million more children would be malnourished by 2050 due to the effects of climate change.

The negative effects of climate change are especially pronounced in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Compared to the average biophysical effects of climate change on yields in the industrialised world, the developing countries fare worse for almost all crops.

Mark Rosegrant, Director of IFPRI's Environmental and Production Technology Division and Co- author of the report said agriculture was extremely vulnerable to climate change, because farming was weather-dependent. He said small-scale farmers in developing countries would suffer the most.

Rosegrant said the study found out that the scenario of lower yields, higher prices for food and increased child malnutrition could be avoided. "If governments and donors begin now to invest seriously in adaptation for poor farmers, we could avert this bleak future," he stressed.

Climate change threatens many in Mekong region: WWF

Changing weather patterns and rising seas are already affecting many people in Southeast Asia's Greater Mekong Basin and climate change threatens the livelihoods of millions more, a report released on Monday shows.

Intense floods and droughts, coastal erosion, higher seas and heat waves in coming decades threaten rice, fruit and coffee crops and fisheries on which many of the basin's 65 million people depend, says the report by global conservation group WWF.

"Across the region, temperatures are rising and have risen by 0.5 to 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 50 years," says the report issued on the sidelines of U.N. climate talks in the Thai capital.

"While rainy seasons may contract over parts of the region, overall rainfall is expected to rise. This means more intense rain events when they occur," it says, threatening crops and triggering floods and landslides.

The basin runs from the Tibetan plateau in China, to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, where the Mekong empties into the South China Sea.

The delta produces about half Vietnam's rice crop and 60 percent of its shrimp harvest. But rising seas and salt water intrusion threaten harvests and would likely displace farmers.

"Large human populations living in low-lying coastal areas and floodplains make the region highly vulnerable to floods, saltwater intrusion, and rising sea levels," the report said, referring to Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok and Hanoi.

The Price of Green

You have a hybrid automobile in your driveway, and you faithfully recycle. Is it time to go "green" with your money, too, by investing in eco-sensitive funds?

There are roughly three dozen dedicated green portfolios from which to choose, according to research firm Morningstar Inc. They include both mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. Most focus on companies involved in environment-related industries—such as alternative energy or water treatment and distribution—though a few take it a step further by including a broader mix of companies with low carbon footprints, regardless of the sector in which they operate. Beyond these dedicated green portfolios, there are funds that screen holdings for certain environmental factors as part of a broader commitment to socially responsible investing..

Some financial planners and green-investing professionals say the near future bodes well for companies involved in green industries because of what many see as an eco-friendly White House, economic-stimulus money earmarked for alternative-energy technology, and proposed legislation in Congress that seeks to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and establish standards for energy efficiency.

The "policy and regulatory environment is going to be a boon for green investing, as companies across industries scramble to realign their carbon intensity and how they perform energy-efficiency-wise," says Bennett Freeman, the senior vice president for sustainability research and policy at Calvert Asset Management Co., a longtime participant in socially responsible investing and the manager of the Calvert Global Alternative Energy fund.

But investors tempted by green investing need to choose funds carefully and understand that some of these sectors can be very volatile, as illustrated by the bankruptcy of multiple ethanol and biofuel producers, as well as struggles among small solar-power companies, amid a drop in oil prices over the past year. It is also important to recognize that buying into green businesses and shunning those that are harder on the Earth's resources won't benefit the environment directly.

Political Alliances Shift in Fight Over Climate Bill

The flurry of companies quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is highlighting how the climate-change issue is straining traditional alliances in Washington, as some businesses seek to profit from overhauling the energy market and others try to cut deals to head off tougher regulation.

Some companies and industry groups that have in the past worked with Republicans to fight efforts to curb the use of fossil fuels — such as Detroit's auto makers — are now expressing support for action on climate change. Some support legislation to put a price on the carbon-dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, while others support preserving the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate such greenhouse gases.

The Chamber of Commerce says it supports efforts to fight climate change through federal investments and incentives for power that can be produced without emitting carbon dioxide. But the group has opposed proposals to require companies to pay for the right to emit carbon. The Chamber, which says it represents three million businesses, says its positions are "mainstream, common-sense views" approved by a majority of more than 100 business leaders who sit on its board of directors.

Some companies — such as Peabody Energy and ConocoPhillips — have spoken out against climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives. Others — such as General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp. — have expressed support for it. Many companies backing action on climate change stand to gain if the U.S. requires corporations to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide.

In the past two weeks, three utilities — Exelon Corp., PG&E Corp. and PNM Resources Inc. — have quit the Chamber, citing the group's opposition to climate bills. A fourth company, Nike Inc., said Wednesday that it was resigning from the Chamber's board because the group "has not represented the diversity of perspective" held by the board's members on climate change.

Renewable energy? It's an offshore thing

Imagine what it is like to open the bonnet of your car, stand on top of the engine and be hoisted 85m above the North Sea on a perilously narrow pole. The view on a clear day is breathtaking, but when the wind is blowing so hard the whole contraption swings 4m from side to side, it is grim – even for Leif Bolther.

This 51-year-old Swede, with forearms that would shame Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a seasoned technician in the wind industry. Blooded in the Norwegian offshore oil sector, Bolther has worked in the remotest parts of China and India, but still admits: "It can be hard up there in the terrible cold and freezing rain."

The tough but affable Swede is part of a burgeoning workforce promising a renewable revolution far out to sea. It will replicate the earlier North Sea oil industry, except that it is carbon-free and a vital tool in the battle against global warming.

Bolther works for the turbine manufacturer Siemens in Danish and Swedish waters, where much of the early running has been made in the offshore wind industry. Lillgrund, located 10km off the coast close to the median line with Denmark, is Sweden's biggest wind farm. The 48 turbines produce 110MW of power, enough to light 60,000 homes.

But this week Britain will unveil much more radical plans for this side of the North Sea. The Crown Estate on Wednesday will give briefings on what is known as Round Three (R3) licensing awards, which will take the industry out into much deeper waters. Shortlists have been drawn up and the Crown Estate will soon announce which companies and consortia have been chosen. Nine areas, including the Dogger Bank, acreage off Norfolk and the Firth of Forth, have been designated for development.

The third licensing round is a step change for the UK offshore industry, offering developers the chance to build 25GW of new power. Under rounds one and two, which started in 2000, 8GW can be developed. Combined, the total of 33GW would represent more than 10 times what is produced from wind power today. That would help Britain meet its European Union-agreed targets of producing 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Today it is a tiny fraction of that, while wind already provides Denmark with 20% of its power.

U.N. climate scientist says clean tech good investment

The United Nations scientist whose report set the global standard for climate change sees biofuels as a good investment bet and advised on Friday that people eat less meat to help curb global warming.

In an interview on what individuals in developed countries can do to slow climate change and profit in the process, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, advised investors to assume the future will be low-carbon. "Investors should be going toward clean technologies," he said. "The world is going to move toward a low-carbon future. That is inevitable."

The IPCC's 2007 report galvanized global reaction to climate change with predictions that world temperatures could rise as much as 11.5 degrees F (6.4 degrees Celsius) this century if carbon emissions were not tackled. New technologies, some of which are still in the lab, could become important, Pachauri said on the sidelines of the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles.

"Battery technology is going to be extremely important, but I wouldn't rule out the importance of biofuels. Of course it won't be biofuels converting corn into ethanol. It will be a new generation of biofuels that has relatively low environmental and other social impacts."

"Production of hydrogen from water in a way that's not going to be terribly intensive in terms of conventional forms of energy," could be important. "You have algae that has a lot of potential" as a biofuel, he added.

Vermont boosts payoff for renewable energy

Seeking to boost solar and other types of renewable energy, Vermont has joined a small but growing number of states enacting guarantees for what utilities will pay for green power.

The state Public Service Board, responding to legislation passed earlier this year,issued an order this week setting up a system of contracts in which renewable energy developers can get a fixed price for their power for 20 years.

Prices range up to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar power projects — a level that critics decry as likely to drive up rates and hurt the economy. Supporters say such a guarantee is needed to get investors to step forward and build renewable energy projects.

"We support renewables to round out the state's energy future. And we hope the feed-in tariff will result in growth of renewables at a faster rate," said Stephen Wark of the Department of Public Service, which manages energy policy for the administration of Gov. Jim Douglas.

"But we're a bit concerned at the impact on rates that this could have," he said. The program is capped at 50 megawatts. Wark said his department has estimated if projects totaling that amount are built under the price guarantees, it could raise electric rates by 2 to 3.

Guaranteed rates are lower for wind power, small hydroelectric and biomass power, but still higher than the 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour utilities are paying at wholesale for electricity generated with nuclear and fossil fuel-based energy. The new program "guarantees contract prices based upon the actual present-day cost of building the project," said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee and a key author of the legislation.

The impact on rates will be limited by the relatively small scope of the program, Klein said. The 50 megawatt program represents about 4 percent of Vermont's total power demand. Individual projects are capped at 2.2 megawatts.

Climate Bill Includes Green Taxis Act

A measure included in the U.S. Senate's newly-unveiled climate change bill, could clear the way for New York City and other metropolitan areas to require the conversion

The Green Taxis Act of 2009 would allow city governments to set fuel-economy and emissions standards for privately owned taxicabs.

Federal courts have twice ruled that New York City's green taxi initiatives were illegal, because only the federal government is allowed to set vehicle standards. According to a New York Times report, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg worked with the state's junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, to craft the law and push it into the Senate climate package.

Parallel legislation reportedly will be introduced in the House by Representative Jerrold L. Nadler of Manhattan. Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and other cities have also run into legal roadblocks in building green taxi fleets. of taxi fleets to more environmentally friendly hybrid and electric vehicles.

Mighty caribou herds dwindle, warming blamed

Here on the endlessly rolling and tussocky terrain of northwest Canada, where man has hunted caribou since the Stone Age, the vast antlered herds are fast growing thin. And it's not just here.

Across the tundra 1,500 kilometers (1,000 miles) to the east, Canada's Beverly herd, numbering more than 200,000 a decade ago, can barely be found today. Halfway around the world in Siberia, the biggest aggregation of these migratory animals, of the dun-colored herds whose sweep across the Arctic's white canvas is one of nature's matchless wonders, has shrunk by hundreds of thousands in a few short years.

From wildlife spectacle to wildlife mystery, the decline of the caribou — called reindeer in the Eurasian Arctic — has biologists searching for clues, and finding them. They believe the insidious impact of climate change, its tipping of natural balances and disruption of feeding habits, is decimating a species that has long numbered in the millions and supported human life in Earth's most inhuman climate.

Many herds have lost more than half their number from the maximums of recent decades, a global survey finds. They "hover on the precipice of a major decline," it says. The "People of the Caribou," the native Gwich'in of the Yukon and Alaska, were among the first to sense trouble, in the late 1990s, as their Porcupine herd dwindled. From 178,000 in 1989, the herd — named for the river crossing its range — is now estimated to number 100,000.

"They used to come through by the hundreds," James Firth, 56, of the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board said as he guided two Associated Press journalists across the tundra. Off toward distant horizons this summer afternoon, only small groups of a dozen or fewer migrating caribou could be seen grazing southward across the spongy landscape, green with a layer of grasses, mosses and lichen over the Arctic permafrost.

"I've never seen it like this before," Firth said of the sparse numbers. More than 50 identifiable caribou herds migrate over huge wilderness tracts in a wide band circling the top of the world. They head north in the spring to ancient calving grounds, then back south through summer and fall to winter ranges closer to northern forests.

Soot clouds pose threat to Himalayan glaciers

Glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau that feed the river systems of almost half the world's people are melting faster because of the effects of clouds of soot from diesel fumes and wood fires, according to scientists in India and China.

The results, to be announced this month in Kashmir, show for the first time that clouds of soot – made up of tiny particles of "black carbon" emitted from old diesel engines and from cooking with wood, crop waste or cow dung – are "unequivocally having an impact on glacial melting" in the Himalayas.

Scientists say that, while the threat of carbon dioxide to global warming has been accepted, soot from developing countries is a largely unappreciated cause of rising temperatures. Once the black carbon lands on glaciers, it absorbs sunlight that would otherwise be reflected by the snow, leading to melting. "This is a huge problem which we are ignoring," said Professor Syed Hasnain of the Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) in Delhi. "We are finding concentrations of black carbon in the Himalayas in what are supposed to be pristine, untouched environments."

The institute has set up two sensors in the Himalayas, one on the Kholai glacier that sits on the mountain range's western flank in Kashmir and the other flowing through the eastern reaches in Sikkim. Glaciers in this region feed most of the major rivers in Asia. The short-term result of substantial melting is severe flooding downstream.

Hasnain says India and China produce about a third of the world's black carbon, and both countries have been slow to act. "India is the worst. At least in China the state has moved to measure the problem. In Delhi no government agency has put any sensors on the ground. [Teri] is doing it by ourselves."