Get ready for seven feet as climate change melts ice sheets this century The Guardian

Get ready for seven feet as climate change melts ice sheets this century

The Guardian

"Doing most of your Good thru Donations is Like paying someone to eat for you - soon you Die." SL

"Doing most of your Good thru Donations is
Like paying someone to eat for you - soon you Die."  SL

Massively, Hugely, Gigantically important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyuxfHvdrGw

Climate Progress

Climate Progress

---

• "Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming"
• Energy and Global Warming News for January 7th: EPA announces strict new health standards for smog; Clean tech funding outpaces every other VC sector
• Reports of Climate Bill Death are Greatly Exaggerated
• Graham won't bow to "political push back": "I have come to conclude that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution [are] not a good thing."
• Democratic majorities safe, for now
• Breaking: Salazar Gets Permission To Run For Gov
• Where on Earth is it unusually warm? Greenland and the Arctic Ocean, which is full of rotten ice
• Chris Matthews: Politico serves as the Drudge-Like "news conduit" for Dick Cheney
• Paul Allen, Sr. VP Constellation Energy on solving the "climate crisis": "I'm not a believer that we have to wait until some new technologies come along. We have ample technologies now."
• Waxman sees push for climate bill in 2010

"Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming" Posted: 07 Jan 2010 09:19 AM PST … experts say the cold snap doesn't disprove global warming at all — it's just a blip in the long-term heating trend. "It's part of natural variability," said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. With global warming, he said, "we'll still have record cold temperatures. We'll just have fewer of them." Deke Arndt of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that 2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years for Earth since 1880. Leave it to the Associated Press to state the obvious starting with the blunt headline.  They've been doing some of the best straight reporting on human-caused climate change (see AP analysis of stolen emails: An "exhaustive review" shows "the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.") In fact, 2009 ranks among the 5 warmest on Earth, and the entire planet just keeps warming thanks to human emissions (see Must-read AP story: Statisticians reject global cooling; Caldeira — "To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous").  It's not just the surface that's warming, but we're also seeing it where climate science said more than 90% of the warming would end up — the oceans (see "Skeptical Science explains how we know global warming is happening: It's the oceans, stupid!") Robert Henson, author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change also has a good piece in the UK's Guardian, "Snow, ice and the bigger picture":  The cold snap tells us little about climate change, but if you want something to blame it on, try the Arctic oscillation," which notes: What's different now is that climate change is shifting the odds towards record-hot summers and away from record-cold winters. The latter aren't impossible; they're just harder to get, like scoring a straight flush on one trip to Vegas and a royal flush the next. It's also critical to remember the "global" in global warming. Even if every inch of land in the northern hemisphere were unusually cold, that would only represent 20% of Earth's surface. There's plenty of warmth elsewhere around the world. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data through November hints that 2009 may end up ranked as the southern hemisphere's warmest year on record. For the planet as a whole, last year falls solidly among the 10 warmest years of the past 100. And despite all the talk about Earth having cooled since the late 1990s, this past decade trumps the 1990s as the warmest on record. Precisely. I'd also note that the AP story begins: Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And some in the media have also queried me about stories where people report non-record-breaking cold.  It bears repeating, as I said on Fox, that global warming can't turn January into July.  So merely reporting it's cold in January isn't news that has any relevancy to global warming. If we see record-breaking extremes of a very certain kind — once-in-a-century type events — those I think can be evidentiary (see "Hell and High Water hits Georgia" and "Weather Channel expert on Georgia's record-smashing global-warming-type deluge").  But reading about near-record temps in a city or small country or part of a big country just doesn't cut it. It's one thing to say, for instance, 2009 was one the five warmest years on record — or even Australia had its hottest decade ever, but to say, it was so cold yesterday in one city it didn't even break the record or we just had a once-in-30-years weather event, well, that's just not evidence of anything but boredom by the media. The scientific literature now says "Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S." (the lead author is NCAR's Meehl, cited in the AP story). So it's only the statistical accumulation of record highs versus record lows over an extended period of time that tell us much about the state of the climate. We've only had about 1°F warming in recent decades, which can't do much more than skew the odds — it certainly hasn't warmed anywhere near enough to have driven us outside the bounds of the much larger temperature swings that come from regional weather patterns, let alone the seasons.  That's why one needs to do statistical analysis to draw conclusions like the one signed off on by Bush's Commerce Sec. Carlos Gutierrez, Energy Sec. Samuel Bodman, and Science Advisor John Marburger III (see "why the anti-science disinformers try to shout down any talk of a link between climate change and extreme weather"): Heavy precipitation events averaged over North America have increased over the past 50 years, consistent with the observed increases in atmospheric water vapor, which have been associated with human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. And they signed off on the conclusion that those "Extreme precipitation episodes" now "account for a larger percentage of total precipitation. The most significant changes have occurred in most of the United States." And for some reason, it always bears repeating that precipitation isn't temperature — and record snowfall in places where it is normally cold enough in the winter to snow doesn't provide evidence against the theory of human-caused climate change.  Quite the reverse (see Was the "Blizzard of 2009″ a "global warming type" of record snowfall — or an opportunity for the media to blow the extreme weather story (again)?). It doesn't look like we'll have to put with these stories much longer: Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for Weather Underground, a forecasting service, said he expects more typical winter weather across North America early next week. And, of course, 2010 still remains likely to be the hottest year on record, given the moderate to strong El Niño we are still experiencing — more on that shortly.

Energy and Global Warming News for January 7th: EPA announces strict new health standards for smog; Clean tech funding outpaces every other VC sector Posted: 07 Jan 2010 08:58 AM PST E.P.A. Announces Strict New Health Standards for Smog The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed stricter health standards for smog, replacing a Bush-era limit that ran counter to scientific recommendations. The new limits — which are presented as a range — will likely put hundreds more counties nationwide in violation, a designation that will require them to find additional ways to clamp down on pollution or face government sanctions, most likely the loss of federal highway dollars…. The proposed range was what scientists had recommended during the Bush administration. However, former President George W. Bush personally intervened and set the standard above what was advised after protests from electric utilities and other industries. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement Thursday that science, this time around, had been followed. "EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face," Jackson said. "Using the best science to strengthen these standards is long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier." The Obama administration earlier this year had indicated it planned to scrap the Bush smog limits. Smog is a respiratory irritant that has been linked to asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses. It is formed when emissions from cars, power plants and other factories mix in sunlight. While smog has been a long-term problem in parts of Texas, California, and along the northeast Coast, the new standards could affect counties in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, the Dakotas, Kansas, Minnesota and Iowa for the first time based on EPA data. Clean tech gets big piece of venture-capital funding Venture-capital funding for clean-technology firms fell 33% in 2009 from the year before, but the sector fared better than others amid a dismal economy, data released Wednesday indicate. More than $5.6 billion in venture-capital investment went to clean-tech firms — including solar, wind, energy efficiency, transportation and biofuels — last year, say preliminary data from market researcher Cleantech Group and finance firm Deloitte. Total venture-capital investment has retreated to 2003 levels, but clean tech has reset only to 2007 levels, the Cleantech Group says. "It was a difficult year, but I see clean tech … as the best of the worst," says Shawn Lesser, founder of finance firm Sustainable World Capital. The money flow underscores that: •Clean tech has muscle. In 2004, the sector accounted for about 3% of venture-capital investment. That expanded to about 25% in 2009. The sector last year, for the first time, received more private venture capital than any other sector, including software, Cleantech Group says. •Efficiency and transportation are in. The top clean-tech recipient in 2009 was solar, which got 21% of it. But solar investment was down 64% from the previous year, while the transportation and energy-efficiency sectors had record years. The drop for solar stems from several factors, including the big amounts of money needed to commercialize technologies, says Dallas Kachan, managing director of the Cleantech Group. Meanwhile, energy-efficiency firms — those concentrating on everything from lighting to green building materials — often need less money to bring products or services to market, may rely on more proven technologies and may pose less risk to investors. "They're not reinventing the wheel," Kachan says. Last year, venture capital for transportation — for such things as electric cars and new battery technology — rose 47% to $1.1 billion. Investment in energy efficiency rose 39% to $1 billion. •North America may be slipping. The region is still dominant for clean-tech venture capital, but it's getting a smaller share than it used to. Last year, North America received 62% of clean-tech venture-capital dollars, down from 72% in 2008, the Cleantech Group says. Europe and Israel took in 29% of 2009 dollars, up from 22% in 2008. That Europe and Israel increased their share of venture-capital funding may reflect the desire for investors to pursue less risky deals in markets where clean tech is already more widely deployed, Lesser says. Hannity, Ever Wrong, Says CIA Is Diverting Resources For Climate Change Did you know that the CIA is distracted by climate change and is diverting resources on global warming that should be spent on counter terrorism? It's true. Ask Sean Hannity and ExxonMobil. Said Hannity last night on his TV program: "The CIA director redirects manpower to monitor climate change, but is it all the cost — at the cost of our security, your security, your family's security? "[I]n the wake of the attempted Christmas Day terror attack, you would think the spies at the CIA, that they would have their hands full securing America. But, believe it or not, assets at Langley are being used for other projects." Where did Hannity get his info. From National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), sponsored by Exxon, that's where. In a press release, they said, "As terrorists continue to infiltrate America, the Obama Administration is tasking some of our nation's most elite intelligence-gathering agencies to divert their resources to environmental scientists researching global warming." Sadly for Hannity, the intelligence community says that the information sharing has no impact at all on counter-terorrism efforts. In a New York Times article, officials said: "The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness." Labor Department gives nearly $100 million in green-jobs training grants The government is funneling nearly $100 million into training programs for green jobs, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis said today. The funds, part of a $500-million green workforce development initiative through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will go to 25 projects around the country. The programs are designed to help workers find jobs — such as hybrid and electric auto technicians, weatherization specialists, wind and energy auditors, and solar panel installers — in growing energy-efficiency and renewable-energy industries. The money will be parceled out in Energy Training Partnership Grants ranging from $1.4 million to $5 million each. Projects in communities affected by the restructuring in the auto industry will receive $28 million. Only one project based entirely in California will get funding. $5 million will go to develop training for the state's unemployed and underemployed electricians through the California State Labor Management Cooperation Committee for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the National Electrical Contractors Assn. But four other grantees will spread their new resources across several states including California. For example, the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, will spend part of its nearly $5-million package on women, minorities, incumbent workers and young people in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The International Training Institute for the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Industry will also include parts of the state as it creates training for veterans, minorities, women and the unemployed and underemployed using its nearly $5-million grant. Funding figures for two remaining green grant categories will be released over the next few weeks, according to the Labor Department. Line 'needed' for green gold rush The rush to generate energy from wind and the sea is the main driver behind the Beauly to Denny line, according to Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE). Scotland, like the rest of the UK, has been set targets for producing more power from renewable sources to help tackle climate change. Sites in the north of Scotland will play major roles in doing that. The Pentland Firth, Western and Northern isles have been identified as prime locations for "green" projects. SSE said the transmission line between the Highlands and central Scotland must be upgraded to carry the volume of electricity created and to encourage greater competition in the market. The existing line carries 132,000 volts (132kV), while the new one will be able to carry 400kV. SSE said of the Beauly to Denny line: "The need for the country's green and more indigenous sources of energy is becoming increasingly acute and a rejection, or even partial rejection, of the replacement line will significantly delay Scotland's efforts to tackle climate change. "Scotland's climate change commitments, industry confidence in renewables investment, broader economic development and employment in harnessing Scotland's renewable resources will all falter, at a time when the delivery of green energy solutions has never been more urgent." The north of Scotland has been flagged up as key to the generation of renewable power. First Minister Alex Salmond has previously described the Pentland Firth between Caithness and Orkney as the Saudi Arabia of marine power because of its tidal energy potential. New Life for Solar-Updraft Technology? The solar updraft tower, which uses the greenhouse effect and thermal convection to drive wind turbines and produce electricity, has been hailed as a novel — and promising — approach to renewable energy generation. The technology relies on an elementary principle of physics: heat rises. To generate power, a massive greenhouse creates hot air and funnels it into a tall chimneylike structure. This hot wind propels a wind turbine within the tower. According to some estimates, such towers could, if sufficiently large and in the proper environment, generate emissions-free power at a considerable discount over traditional renewable sources. Nevertheless, solar updraft has been a nonstarter in the world of utility-scale power. A 50-kilowatt research prototype was built and successfully operated in Spain for several years in the mid-1980s, but the technology has not been proven commercially viable. Now, an Australian company, EnviroMission Ltd., hopes to convince investors to support its plans to build two utility-scale solar updraft towers in the desert of Arizona. The company has submitted applications to use several hundred acres of public land in La Paz County for the plants. Last November, the Southern California Public Power Authority approved the company as a potential power provider. Each solar-tower plant would require a 2,400-foot-tall chimney – just 200 hundred feet shorter than the Burj Dubai, the world's tallest building – to be situated over a four-square-mile-wide greenhouse. The company estimates the 200-megawatt plants will both cost $750 million. If history is any guide, the project will be difficult to translate from blueprints to reality. After incorporating in 2000, EnviroMission sought to construct a nearly identical updraft tower in rural New South Wales, Australia. The company raised millions of dollars and purchased 24,000 acres of land, but failed to secure sufficient financing to begin construction. In a November 2009 message to shareholders, the company's chairman, Roger Davey, blamed its failure to break ground on the withdrawal of support from the Australian government. With the Australian project on hold, EnviroMission has focused its hopes on the American market, opening an office in downtown Phoenix and hiring the financial services firm Raymond James to help attract new investors. It is not the only company seeking to make utility-scale solar updraft towers a reality. In late 2008, the Namibian government pledged its support for a feasibility study on a nearly one-mile-high updraft tower. The project, dubbed "Greentower," would use a massive greenhouse to grow crops, while also generating hot air to drive wind turbines. Has the U.S. Reached Peak Vehicles? Americans scrapped 4 million more cars and trucks last year than they purchased, the first significant drop in the U.S. auto fleet in more than four decades, according to a new report. The United States scrapped 14 million vehicles last year while buying only 10 million new ones, dropping the nation's fleet from an all-time high of 250 million to 246 million, according to the Earth Policy Institute. Lester Brown, the author of the report, said the drop — the first significant shrinkage the U.S. fleet has seen since record-keeping began in 1960 — represents a "cultural shift away from the car" and estimated the fleet size will continue to recede during the next decade. He estimated the fleet could shrink a total of 10 percent by 2020. "No one knows how many cars will be sold in the years ahead, but given the many forces at work, U.S. car sales may never again reach the 17 million that were sold each year between 1999 and 2007," Brown said. "Sales seem more likely to remain between 10 million and 14 million per year." The report comes one day after the automakers posted sales numbers for December, a month that showed a small but significant uptick in sales and brought a close to what has been one of the worst years in the history of the industry. Brown said this summer's federal Cash for Clunkers program, which paid Americans to scrap old cars and trucks for newer, more fuel-efficient ones, played only a small role in the downward trend because it accounted for roughly 700,000 cars. "It has an effect but a minor one," he said. Instead, Brown attributed the drop to a number of other factors and stressed that it was being driven by more than just the current economic recession, which is widely seen as the major cause of the recent sales slump that has plagued the auto industry. Among the reasons cited in the report were market saturation caused by more registered vehicles than licensed drivers, economic and environmental concerns, and a shift away from the importance and prestige of the automobile in the youth culture. "Perhaps the most fundamental social trend affecting the future of the automobile is the declining interest in cars among young people," Brown said. "Many of today's young people living in a more urban society learn to live without cars. They socialize on the Internet and on smart phones, not in cars." Assuming the fleet downsizing continues, Brown said it would cut long-term oil demand and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which currently accounts for roughly a third of U.S. emissions. He said it could also lead to increases in steel supplies as big cars get recycled and fewer are produced. He said the trend will also decrease the need to build new roads and highways, and that fewer cars and trucks on the road would cut maintenance and repair costs, as well as decrease demand for parking lots and parking garages. "As this evolution proceeds, it will affect virtually every facet of life," Brown said. The report was based on data from the Transportation Department's Federal Highway Administration and was compiled with the help of R.L. Polk & Co., an automotive research and consulting firm. Va., Md. to push for disposable bag fee Maryland and Virginia lawmakers say they will push for 5-cent fees on disposable paper and plastic bags at stores, according to the Washington Examiner. The move comes after the District became the first major city in the nation to impose such a fee. "The environmental clean-up cost is the primary reason why we're introducing this in Virginia," said Del. Adam Ebbin, a Democrat who represents parts of Arlington and Fairfax counties, as well as part of Alexandria in the Virginia General Assembly. Del. Alfred Carr, a Democrat who represents Montgomery County, said the region needed to move ahead as one and plans to introduce similar legislation in the Maryland General Assembly, the Examiner reported.

Reports of Climate Bill Death are Greatly Exaggerated Posted: 07 Jan 2010 07:16 AM PST No CEO Steve Jobs doesn't have a lot in common with the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill — except perhaps that his company shuffled off the nano-Chamber of Commerce over its 'frustrating' global warming denialism.  But the bill is still alive and kicking, as I've been saying (see here and here).  Bradford Plumer, Assistant Editor at The New Republic has a must-read analysis, "Hold Off On Those Climate Bill Obituaries…." that makes the same point, which I reprint below. Seems like the conventional wisdom in Washington right now is that there's no way the Senate passes a climate bill in 2010—especially after that long, gory health care battle we just saw. Here's The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "No matter what Obama and his advisers said… there is now no chance that the Administration's climate-change proposal will come up for a vote in the Senate prior to the 2010 election. Politicians never like casting controversial votes, but they like doing so even less in an election year." Cillizza posted that in late December, shortly after Politico published its own story on how "moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year." Now, there's slightly less to the Politico story than meets the eye, since the main cap-bashing quotes came from Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, who have been surefire "no" votes since day one. (Nelson we're all familiar with, and Landrieu's a no because she relies on support from Louisiana's oil refiners, who seem to outweigh any concern that her state's particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels and hurricanes.) But Politico's right that it'll be a tough slog. That said, there don't seem to be any signs that Democrats are planning to relent just yet. A few days ago, Ben Geman of The Hill reported that most of the caucus wants to move on a climate bill, and that includes coal-staters like Arlen Specter. True, a few conservative Dems would rather drop the carbon cap and just pass a standalone energy bill—money for renewables, money for the grid and electric vehicles, etc.—but that's still a minority view. And the White House insists it won't stand for "slicing and dicing." They want the full cap. Granted, just because Democrats are moving ahead doesn't mean they have the votes. And if Landrieu and Nelson are opposed, they'll need some Republican support. But optimists should note that Lindsey Graham is still huddling with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman on a "tripartisan" climate bill. Graham keeps getting abused by the South Carolina GOP, but he's calling for a "meaningful control" on pollution. Also, Susan Collins is co-sponsoring a cap-and-dividend bill—read about the pros and cons of that approach here. So that's at least two Republicans. Not a slam-dunk, but not sheer fantasy, either. (And for those who love tea leaves, two more Republicans, Richard Lugar and Lisa Murkowski, were saying positive things about the Copenhagen accord.) So what about Cillizza's argument that politicians "never like casting controversial votes in an election year"? That depends how controversial you think a climate bill will be. Many pundits (and Democrats) think it's poison. But curbing carbon pollution does surprisingly well in the polls—and support has held steady for some time now, despite Climategate, GOP attacks on the House bill, etc. (Last I checked, swing Dems in the House weren't suffering for their Waxman-Markey votes, either.) Mind you, health care's been hogging all the oxygen lately, and once the spotlight's on climate, support could shrivel—especially if the economy's still flopping and everyone's furious at Obama. But, for now, it's not clear that climate/clean energy's a toxic issue. What's more, as Tom Daschle has pointed out, it's not even true that Congress shies away from controversial bills in election years. Welfare reform passed in the summer of 1996, and the most recent Clean Air Act amendments—including a cap-and-trade system for sulfur-dioxide—passed the Senate in April of 1990. Both big election years. (If anything, you'd think that House members would be more skittish about passing election-year bills; senators were given six-year terms precisely so their chamber didn't have to freak out over every little midterm.) Then there's the biggest reason climate change isn't likely to slink away in 2010—the EPA, remember, is still preparing to regulate carbon-dioxide on its own if Congress doesn't step in. That's already prompted a few swing senators, like Mark Pryor, to reconsider their stance on cap-and-trade. The Senate doesn't have a choice between doing nothing and doing something. It's a choice between doing something or having the EPA do it for them and making a lot of businesses angry. (One caveat: As Kate Sheppard reports, on January 20th, the Senate will vote on a Murkowski amendment to strip the EPA's CO2 authority. It's unlikely this gets 60 votes, but if it does pass, that obviously makes a huge difference.) Anyway, I'm not wholly confident a climate bill will pass in 2010—it's the Senate, after all, and lots can go awry. But none of the early obituaries for cap-and-trade sound very persuasive. What's more, it's worth considering what would happen if Dems did abandon climate change this year. The party's expected to lose seats in both the House and the Senate this fall, and there aren't a whole lot of green Republicans on the ballot (especially now that Charlie Crist could get snuffed out in Florida). So how will tackling carbon emissions get any easier in 2011 or 2012? It feels a little extreme to say, "It's now or never," but on this issue, that's a real possibility… JR:  I certainly agree it would be harder in 2011 or 2012, since the Dems are likely to lose some two dozen House seats and possibly a few Senate seats (albeit some to "moderates").  If you want a bill, this is the year to pull out all the stops.

Graham won't bow to "political push back": "I have come to conclude that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution [are] not a good thing." Posted: 07 Jan 2010 06:32 AM PST When we last left Lindsey Graham, the conservative Senator from South Carolina was being censured again (!) by a SC county party for trying to create clean energy jobs in the state, clean its air and reduce the nearly $1 billion a day we ship overseas to buy oil, "some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations." On Tuesday, he pushed back: U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham renewed his call Tuesday for federal controls on greenhouse gas pollution, despite continued criticism from the Republican Party's most conservative members.  Graham, R-S.C., backs legislation to crack down on carbon dioxide pollution, which he said will also boost the U.S. economy and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. He dismissed his censure as the 'misplaced priorities' of narrow interests within the larger Republican Party, asserting, "The man who authored the resolution has never voted for a Republican nominee for president in the history of his life," and is "the head of the Ron Paul movement in this part of South Carolina." Then Graham went on to make a very strong pitch for climate action, while "speaking to more than 100 people at a climate change conference in Columbia": Graham said Congress needs to act to control greenhouse gases or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will adopt its own regulations. With polar ice caps melting and air pollution a threat, it's also good for the world and the nation, he said. "I have come to conclude that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution is not a good thing," Graham said. "All the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day-in and day-out, will never convince me that's a good thing for your children and the future of the planet." Graham's comments came a day after the Lexington County Republican Party voted to censure him, in part for supporting federal cap-and-trade legislation. He has been a leader in the push and has worked with leading Democrats. A cap-and-trade system is supposed to limit pollution by requiring companies that want to emit more than certain amounts of greenhouse gases to buy credits from those producing lower amounts. Some critics have complained bitterly about the costs to businesses of cap-and-trade legislation. But Graham said controlling carbon pollution "is a worthy endeavor" that would, in addition to attacking the problem of rising global temperatures, clean up the nation's air and water. He also explained reiterated the national security argument for his bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill: Moving away from the nation's reliance on foreign oil will create more demand for other energy sources and create a new energy economy for the U.S., he said. It's also good for national security, since many nations that sell oil are hostile to the U.S., he said. Although some environmentalists oppose offshore oil drilling and the expansion of nuclear power, Graham said both can be done cleanly. "Whatever political push back I get I'm willing to accept because I know what I'm trying to do makes sense to me," Graham said. "I am convinced that reason, logic and good business sense, and good environmental policy, will trump the status quo." What a minute?  Graham is "convinced that reason, logic and good business sense, and good environmental policy, will trump the status quo"?  And you all think I'm an optimist!  Let's hope he's right. Photo from Rich Glickstein/rglickstein@thestate.com /The State. Related Post: Graham, Kerry, Lieberman: "Every day, we spend nearly $1 billion to sustain our addiction to foreign energy sources and we ship Americans' hard earned dollars overseas, some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations."

Democratic majorities safe, for now Posted: 07 Jan 2010 06:13 AM PST That's the Politico's headline today in a story that concludes, "it doesn't yet appear that the party's congressional majorities are threatened."  Anyway, it's a good piece if you want to know the conventional center-right "establishment" wisdom these days.

Breaking: Salazar Gets Permission To Run For Gov Posted: 07 Jan 2010 05:48 AM PST Pres. Obama is about to lose his first cabinet officer just a year into his term, as Interior Sec. Ken Salazar has gotten WH clearance to return home to seek the GOV mansion. That Hotline story, if true, would certainly be a loss for clean energy advocates because Salazar has been one of the administration's superstars in this area (see "Interior Secretary Salazar, Senator Reid announce 'Fast-Track' initiatives for up to 100,000 MW of solar energy development on Western lands"). The story is a tad confusing, though, since they provide no evidence or quotes confirming in the body of the story: Sources told the Denver Post that Salazar was encouraged to stay in the admin, but that the WH would support his decision to return to CO to run for the seat left vacant by Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) surprise retirement announcement. Salazar did not comment on his future plans during a conference call with reporters. The WashPost story opens: Salazar dodges queries about Colo. governor run Updated 6:29 p.m. ET Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dodged four questions about a possible campaign for Colorado governor during a previously scheduled conference call with reporters on Wednesday. Salazar is reportedly "under tremendous pressure" to make a run as the state's current governor, Bill Ritter, said he will not seek reelection. So far I can't find a story confirming The Hotline.  Please post any news/links if you find them Related Post: Department of Interior launches Climate Change Response Strategy

Where on Earth is it unusually warm? Greenland and the Arctic Ocean, which is full of rotten ice Posted: 06 Jan 2010 01:48 PM PST Map of air temperature anomalies for December 2009, at roughly 3,000 feet above surface, Areas in orange and red are warm anomalies, areas in blue and purple are cool. It's cold here and in northern Eurasia, but it's been positively toasty ar0und the Arctic circle — thanks to an extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, as the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) explained in their online report yesterday. The temperatures reported by NSIDC show some Arctic anomalies exceeding 7°C (13°F)!  That's not good news for the kind of re-freezing one wants to see in the otherwise rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet (see Nature: "Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized").  It's also one reason "December 2009 had the fourth-lowest average ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records, falling just above the extent for 2007. The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade." Significantly, a new study, "Perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009" by Barber et al. finds that all the crowing by the anti-science crowd about the supposed "recovery" of Arctic sea ice was quite premature: In September 2009 we observed a much different sea icescape in the Southern Beaufort Sea than anticipated, based on remotely sensed products. Radarsat derived ice charts predicted 7 to 9 tenths multi-year (MY) or thick first-year (FY) sea ice throughout most of the Southern Beaufort Sea in the deep water of the Canada Basin. In situ observations found heavily decayed, very small remnant MY and FY floes interspersed with new ice between floes, in melt ponds, thaw holes and growing over negative freeboard older ice. This icescape contained approximately 25% open water, predominantly distributed in between floes or in thaw holes connected to the ocean below. Although this rotten ice regime was quite different that the expected MY regime in terms of ice volume and strength, their near-surface physical properties were found to be sufficiently alike that their radiometric and scattering characteristics were almost identical. Yes, satellite (and other) measurements of Arctic sea ice extent were apparently deceived.   You might even say that an unfortunate trick of Nature helped hide the decline of Arctic ice: This case of mistaken identity is physically explained by the factors which contribute to the return to Radarsat-1 from the two surfaces; both ice regimes had similar temperature and salinity profiles in the near-surface volume, both ice types existed with a similar amount of open water between and within the floes, and finally both ice regimes were overlain by similar, recently formed new sea ice in areas of negative freeboard and in open water areas. The fact that these two very different ice regimes could not be differentiated using Radarsat-1 data or in situ C-band scatterometer or microwave radiometer measurements, has significant implications for climate studies and for marine vessel navigation in the Canada Basin. I had blogged on Barber's work when it was first reported by Reuters in November (see "Arctic ice reaches historic seasonal low; "We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere"): The multiyear ice covering the Arctic Ocean has effectively vanished…. "I would argue that, from a practical perspective, we almost have a seasonally ice-free Arctic now, because multiyear sea ice is the barrier to the use and development of the Arctic," said Barber [Canada's Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba]. Barber and his team thought they'd find "a huge multiyear ice pack that should have been in the Beaufort Sea" but Instead, his ice breaker found hundreds of miles of what he called "rotten ice" — 50-cm (20-inch) thin layers of fresh ice covering small chunks of older ice. "I've never seen anything like this in my 30 years of working in the high Arctic … it was very dramatic," he said. And now we have the Geophysical Research Letters paper by Barber et al., which concludes: Our results are consistent with ice age estimates (Fowler and Maslanik, http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html) that show the amount of MY sea ice in the northern hemisphere was the lowest on record in 2009 suggesting that MY sea ice continues to diminish rapidly in the Canada Basin even though 2009 areal extent increased over that of 2007 and 2008. This study suggests that the Arctic continues to lose area — and, more importantly, volume — at a much more rapid pace than any major climate models had suggested.  I'll end with this figure of mean monthly Ice Volume for the Arctic Ocean from a release by several scientific institutions: I still like my odds on a 90% ice free Arctic by 2020 (see "Another big climate be t — Of Ice and Men").  By then, I assume they'll have figured out how to deal with Nature's sea-ice-decline-hiding trick — or there will simply be too little ice for anybody to be fooled. For more, see "Looking for Above Normal Temperatures? They are in the Arctic." Related Posts: UPDATED: Gore Derangement Syndrome "It's like the Arctic is covered with an egg shell and the egg shell is now just cracking completely"

Chris Matthews: Politico serves as the Drudge-Like "news conduit" for Dick Cheney Posted: 06 Jan 2010 01:08 PM PST I am less and less a fan of the more and more center-right Politico (see "Memo to Politico: Do you really aspire to being nothing more than a new media version of the MSM — stenographers of the status quo?")  This TP repost has some blunt comments from a leading TV journalist: Last month, Politico conducted an "interview" with former Vice President Dick Cheney. As ThinkProgress noted at the time, the paper's top reporters — Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen — transcribed Cheney's attacks on Obama without challenge, criticism, or rebuttal. Indeed, Cheney has been using Politico as his print version of Fox News. In May, Politico's Allen was leaked an "exclusive" preview of Cheney's attacks on Obama's decision to close Guantanamo. Again in October, Allen "broke news" that Cheney was attacking Obama's Afghanistan policy. And just last week, Allen again reported a Cheney attack on Obama's handling of the Christmas Day terrorist incident that was released "in a statement to Politico." Does Cheney "have a thing with Politico?" MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked Politico's Jonathan Martin today on Hardball. "He uses you like he'd use Drudge or somebody," Matthews charged. A stunned Martin had no response for why Cheney has been so willing to give Politico "exclusives." "You'd have to ask the Vice President, Chris," Martin responded, "I'm not sure." Matthews kept pressing the issue: MATTHEWS: I mean, he's got his own news conduit. MARTIN: You know, we aggressively report on both sides. MATTHEWS: It's not reporting. He feeds you this stuff. … I do like Politico. He's feeding you guys this crap. [...] What's he call up and say? "I got a hot one for you, Jon. Can you take — what's your email address?" Is that what he does? Watch it:

Paul Allen, Sr. VP Constellation Energy on solving the "climate crisis": "I'm not a believer that we have to wait until some new technologies come along. We have ample technologies now." Posted: 06 Jan 2010 10:21 AM PST I have some more videos taken while waiting in line to try to get into the Bella Center in Copenhagen (for background, see "Welcome to Disneyland in Denmark — plus one reason Europe's been eating our lunch on renewables, creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs"). Here is Paul Allen, Senior VP and Chief Environmental Officer, Constellation Energy, a Fortune 500 company with 7,100 megawatts of generating capacity, on why the company is a "big supporter of climate legislation, cap-and-trade": Constellation is the largest wholesale power seller and largest retail power seller in the country.  In Part 2, Allen explains Constellation's view of natural gas and energy efficiency and why we don't need to wait for new technologies to address climate change now: And yes, these (F)lip videos are too close. I wanted to make sure I got the audio in the noisy crowded line. Sadly, the Flip camera does not take the microphone attachment. Related Post: The breakthrough technology illusion

Waxman sees push for climate bill in 2010 Posted: 06 Jan 2010 10:18 AM PST A key House committee chairman today dismissed the idea that stalled cap-and-trade legislation is dead for the year and waved off the conventional political wisdom that it will cost Democrats seats. "We're determined to accomplish all our goals, and climate is a very important one that I expect to see in the Senate, with a bill emerging this year," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). "I feel confident based on the intelligence I've received from conversations with some of the key players in the Senate." So E&E News PM (subs. req'd) reported last night.  E&E feels obliged to quote Sen. Inhofe saying the bill is dead, but Waxman notes: "On every issue that I've worked on this year, people have said it can't happen and it's dead for the year," Waxman said. As for those who think the bill is a political liability, Waxman explains: "I don't believe it because I don't think the American people want our national security compromised by our increasing overreliance on foreign oil," Waxman said. "They want jobs. That's the way to get out of this recession. They want to do something about the threat to our environment from carbon emissions." I have a bunch of videos from Copenhagen I haven't posted yet.  Here's Waxman and Markey together speaking at the BlueGreen Alliance reception about the climate and clean energy jobs bill:

You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Progress To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

EXTREMELY URGENT: Sea Shepherd Anti-Whaling RAMMED and SUNK. Survivors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPnOOWJOpxI&feature=player_embedded

and

http://www.seashepherd.org/

SHARE

Climate Progress

---

• Energy and Global Warming News for January 6: China's Qingyuan seeks to boost US electric car sales
• Can U.S. skiing be saved?
• Stavins on Another Copenhagen Outcome: Serious Questions About the Best Institutional Path Forward
• Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) to retire also
• Toles on the tough job of being a Senator
• Breaking: Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) to retire
• Yes, the atmospheric CO2 fraction has risen at a dangerously fast rate in the past 160 years, reaching levels not seen in millions of years
• Lindsey Graham censured again by SC county party for trying to create clean energy jobs in the state, clean its air and reduce the nearly $1 billion a day we ship overseas to buy oil, "some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations."
• Energy and Global Warming News for January 5: Study finds Michigan's plan to fight climate change would also boost state economy; Wind farms could create thousands of new Nebraska jobs — NREL

Energy and Global Warming News for January 6: China's Qingyuan seeks to boost US electric car sales Posted: 06 Jan 2010 09:16 AM PST Qingyuan seeks to boost electric car sales in US Tianjin Qingyuan Electric Vehicle Co, the first Chinese automaker to break into the United States, hopes to significantly boost sales of its self-developed electric models in the world's second-largest market this year, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said on Wednesday. State-backed Qingyuan is among a growing army of Chinese automakers, including BYD Co partly-owned by U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett, eager to tap the fledgling green car sector in mature markets. Qingyuan hopes to sell 3,000 self-made electric vehicles mostly in the United States in 2010, 50 percent more than what it shipped there in the past five years, the source told Reuters. It is also seeking opportunities to sell electric vehicles in Europe where regulators have been tightening up emission rules to tackle environmental issues, the source said. "Qingyuan is rather positive on the outlook of its export business as market potential for green cars in the U.S. and Europe is huge," said the source. Qingyuan declined to comment. Other Chinese automakers are also stepping up investment in the green car sector which is poised to take off. BYD Co — 10 percent controlled by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc has sold several hundred of its plug-in hybrid, F3DM, unveiled in December 2008. It also plans to export its first electric car, the e6, to the United States this year. Chery Automobile Co, Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corp (BAIC) and SAIC Motor Corp among others have unveiled their electric or hybrid models. France Plans New Version of Carbon Tax The French government plans to levy a new version of the carbon tax in the second half of this year, a spokesman said Tuesday, after an initial version of the bill was rejected by the country's highest court. "The new carbon tax will be effective July 1st," Luc Chatel told a press conference after the weekly cabinet meeting. A previous version of the bill was struck down by the country's Constitutional Council, which ruled that there were too many exemptions to the proposed tax of €17 ($24.5) per metric ton of carbon emitted. That tax was intended to take effect Jan. 1. The council's decision was an unexpected blow to President Nicolas Sarkozy, who pledged tougher environmental legislation in his 2007 presidential campaign and emphasized climate change in his victory speech after being elected. He had championed the tax, which would have been the first such sweeping levy introduced in France in the past 20 years. It was forecast to generate €4.1 billion for the government. Earlier Tuesday, Finance Minister Christine Lagarde gave the first few clues of how the new draft would differ from the one rejected by the court. Large companies that pollute heavily would be penalized more in the new draft of the bill, but the rates could vary, while exemptions on electricity would be maintained, Ms. Lagarde told Les Echos newspaper in an interview. "We are considering the possibility of applying reduced rates and of setting up other incentive mechanisms," Ms. Lagarde said. In the draft proposed late last year, the government exempted over 1,000 highly polluting industrial sites, such as power stations, oil refineries and cement works, because they are already subject to a European Union quota system to be progressively put in place from 2013. According to EU rules, emissions at these sites will have to be cut by 21% by 2020. Capitol Hill loves carbon storage technology. But are lawmakers overlooking risks? An upcoming Journal of the American Medical Association article finds there are "important and unanswered" questions about risks from carbon capture and storage despite deep political support for the technology aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. House and Senate climate change bills would funnel billions of dollars into helping commercialize technology to capture carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and permanently store it underground. But in a commentary slated for publication Wednesday, two doctors say health and safety dangers associated with carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, have not been considered amid promotion of the technology. The doctors – John Fogarty of the University of New Mexico and Michael McCally of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine – cite asphyxiation risks from accidental large-scale releases. "The geologic security or permanence of underground carbon dioxide storage over time also has not been well studied," they write. They also cite potential risks to water supplies. Carbon storage enjoys wide support among lawmakers from coal-producing states and will likely play a major role in any climate and energy legislation that emerges from Capitol Hill. Coal accounts for half of U.S. power generation and the country enjoys abundant coal supplies. It is also a major source of power in fast-growing industrial powers including China. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has called support for low-emissions coal technologies vital, arguing that even if the U.S. were to move away from use of coal, other nations will continue using the resource. Chu is hopeful that widespread CCS deployment can begin in eight to 10 years. The recent stimulus law steered $3.4 billion into CCS, and pending Capitol Hill plans would expand support substantially. Salazar to Toughen U.S. Drilling Rules Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is expected to announce Wednesday that his agency will require oil and natural-gas companies to clear more regulatory hurdles before they are allowed to drill on federal lands. Mr. Salazar's action is likely to make it more difficult for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to fast-track the permitting of oil and gas projects on federal land. BLM field staffers would be required to seek additional approvals from their supervisors and to undertake more visits to areas where energy companies are seeking access, according to people familiar with the matter. The BLM manages more than 260 million acres of federal land, and with it, a significant chunk of U.S. energy supplies. Domestic production from federal onshore oil and gas wells accounts for 11% of U.S. natural-gas supplies and 5% of the nation's oil. The Obama administration is already locked in a bitter fight with the oil and gas industry over proposals to raise billions of dollars in additional taxes from energy companies, and to cap the emissions of gases caused by burning fossil fuels, which have been linked to global warming. Mr. Salazar's action follows litigation from some environmental groups and criticism from the Government Accountability Office that the BLM has often misinterpreted and violated a 2005 federal law. The legislation was designed to speed oil and gas drilling in the West by allowing federal land managers to waive extensive environmental reviews normally required. Part of the problem, the GAO said, is that the 2005 law fails to clearly spell out the conditions under which such waivers, or exclusions, can be granted. Business groups fear the administration's action will discourage domestic energy development, by adding new red tape to the permitting process for oil and gas drilling. In a letter to Mr. Salazar last week, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, a lobbying group that represents manufacturers, credited the 2005 law with reducing drilling-permit backlogs and boosting natural-gas production. "At a time when we should be working to enhance our energy supplies here at home, we believe it would be a mistake to pursue policies that would make it more expensive or difficult to access critical natural-gas resources," the group said. Republican lawmakers also have urged Mr. Salazar not to do away with the practice of granting categorical exclusions altogether, saying better guidance to BLM staff is needed. "We are concerned that the [U.S.] Department of the Interior is prepared to use a sledgehammer where a scalpel would suffice," four Republican lawmakers, led by Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, said in a letter to Mr. Salazar last fall. But some congressional Democrats and environmental groups say the BLM has abused its authority in too many cases, and the rules need to be tightened. The New Republic: Cap-And-Trade With Campbell's There are so many different companies trying to influence the shape of climate policy in Washington that it's hard to get a sense for the sheer scale involved. According to the Center for Public Integrity's latest tally, there are now 1,160 businesses and groups wrangling over the issue—and they've hired a whopping 2,780 climate lobbyists. An even better sign of the frenzy is the fact that companies you'd never expect to care about the arcane details of cap-and-trade are now taking a keen interest. Like Campbell Soup and Kellogg: "It wasn't until we analyzed what was going on in the House that we thought, 'Oh, gosh, we are being affected by this,'" said Kelly Johnston, Campbell Soup's vice president for public affairs, in an interview. At issue are the free "allowances," or carbon dioxide pollution permits that the House-passed climate bill would give to manufacturers that use a lot of energy to produce internationally traded products, like steel and aluminum. Those energy-intensive industries fighting international competitors successfully lobbied for protection from loss of jobs to China and other cheap-energy countries if the United States unilaterally enacted a carbon reduction program that would make coal-burning more expensive here. But the House bill's approach means manufacturers that don't use as much energy — like Campbell — would have to bid at auction for carbon emissions allowances from the federal government. Johnston argues that Campbell should either be exempt from that process or provided some freebies, too. This looks like a fairly important development. Last summer, remember, when Henry Waxman and Ed Markey were cobbling together a climate bill in the House, they struck an intricate balance on how to divvy up the pollution permits under the cap. Some were given away gratis to big polluters or industries at risk of fleeing to China (steel, cement, aluminum, etc.); others were doled out to local electric utilities with the provision that the money would be used to cushion the blow for ratepayers; still other permits were set aside to reduce deforestation or fund new energy sources. You can read Robert Stavins's detailed breakdown of where all the permits went — he argues that about 20 percent of the permits were pure corporate giveaways, while the rest went to ostensibly public purposes. But the point is that this was all a delicate compromise, and still the bill only barely passed through the House. Now that the bill's wending its way through the Senate, a bunch of new companies have decided to get into the lobbying game and try to force a revision to that formula. Natural-gas producers, for example, feel they got short-shifted by the House. And they have a point. But any new revision also risks alienating the industries that backed the original House bill. Maldives, China vow to work closely on climate change Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed and the visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Tuesday pledged to work closely on climate change and other global issues. Nasheed said his country appreciated the important and active role played by China in the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference held last month. He said the Maldives is looking forward to strengthening its cooperation with China in dealing with global issues including climate change. Nasheed said his country respects China's sovereignty and core interests, adding that the Maldives will not do anything that might hurt China's core interests and the two countries' relationship. Yang said China will continue to work closely with the Maldives on climate change and other issues, promoting the interests of developing countries including those of Small Island Developing States. The two leaders said they were satisfied with the good relationship between the two countries and pledged to promote the cooperation in the areas of economy, trade, tourism and fishing. Yang also held talks with Maldivian Foreign Minister Ahmed Shaheed in the visit. Yang arrived here Tuesday afternoon on his way of paying official visits to five African nations and Saudi Arabia. He is expected to leave Maldives Wednesday morning to continue his tour.

Can U.S. skiing be saved? Posted: 06 Jan 2010 08:28 AM PST Human-caused global warming doesn't turn January into July, and so it's no surprise we've got lots of snow now.  The anti-science crowd keeps confusing precipitation with temperature, seeing almost any snowstorm as evidence we're not warming (see "Was the "Blizzard of 2009″ a "global warming type" of record snowfall — or an opportunity for the media to blow the extreme weather story (again)?").  In fact, since climate change will keep bringing more precipitation to certain regions, many northern ski areas will probably have lots of snow for the foreseeable future.  But most major U.S. ski resorts would be devastated if we keep on our current path of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions (see Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn't the worst case, it's business as usual!).  This CAP repost looks at some impacts on and actions by the ski industry.  The AP photo is a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine built by Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock, MA. The ski industry could be in big trouble if climate change continues unabated, and leaders in the industry are taking steps to make their resorts more sustainable while educating their guests. Take Aspen, for instance. The resort is already seeing a gradual increase in frost-free days and warmer nights, according to Mike Kaplan, CEO of Aspen Skiing Company, and aspen trees are dying off in large numbers. A study by the Aspen Global Change Institute forecasts that if global carbon emissions continue to rise, Aspen will warm by 14 degrees by the end of this century—giving it a feel similar to Amarillo, TX. In Utah, a consultant's report released by the nonprofit Park City Foundation this fall predicts that the decrease in snowpack caused by global warming could lead to 1,100 jobs lost by 2030 and a $120 million economic loss in Park City alone. The town is home to three ski resorts and represents a share of the $1 billion that ski resorts bring to the state each year. Ski executives understand the threat and are taking steps. Aspen is increasing its energy efficiency and reliance on renewable energy by installing solar energy systems. And Massachusetts resort Jiminy Peak installed a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine that generates 33 percent of its electricity demands. Kaplan and others, including Steve Rendle, CEO of The North Face, are keen to get the word out about climate change's effect on skiing and outdoor sports. They maintain, however, that these efforts are not enough, and they argue for a global and national climate and energy policy, not just out of concern for the planet, but for their businesses, as well. California's ski industry was one of the first groups to support legislation requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 emission levels by 2020. Skiers and snowboarders can help lower the carbon footprint of their sport through their choices in gear and travel. Colorado's Venture Snowboards runs entirely on wind power, and Burton offers snowboards made from Forest Stewardship Council-certified wood and recycled materials. There's also vegetable-based snowboard wax and organic skiwear. Used gear can be recycled or donated to the Salvation Army or organizations such as SWAG. If you're not a regular skier or snowboarder, renting gear from the resort pro shop or a friend is a good choice. Most people are forced to use SUVs or other gas guzzlers to climb the mountains to resorts, but many ski and snowboard shops such as Emilio's in New York City run shuttle services straight to the slopes from the city. Some train lines on the East Coast will drop you off in free resort shuttle bus territory. If not, you can carpool, which is now easier to do with Facebook applications and resorts such as California's Kirkwood, which provides its own carpool service, the K-Pool. The nonprofit Ski Area Citizen's Coalition runs an online community that assesses the environmental performance and policies of resorts in the United States and Canada. Concerned skiers, snowboarders, and conservationists can sign up and help keep track of how resorts are faring or search the site to see where to find the closest environmentally responsible resort. National and global climate policies would take the biggest step toward cutting the emissions that endanger the ski industry. But those who enjoy the sport and want to see it preserved can do something now. They'd be joined by the major players in the business who are already working to keep the slopes covered in powder well into the future. JR:  Having lived near Aspen for 2 years while working with Amory Lovins, I can attest to the devastation from the bark beetle, even if the media has been slow to make the link to climate change (see "Signs of global warming are everywhere, but if the New York Times can't tell the story (twice!), how will the public hear it?") Related Posts: CEOs of Aspen Skiing Company and The North Face: "Climate change threatens our livelihoods–and yours" Must read book: "Getting Green Done" Schendler Part III: Aspen SkiCo and global warming

Stavins on Another Copenhagen Outcome: Serious Questions About the Best Institutional Path Forward Posted: 06 Jan 2010 05:14 AM PST This guest post by Robert Stavins, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, was first published here. Whether you like it or not, for the time being the most important product of the December meeting in Copenhagen of the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the "Copenhagen Accord," which I assessed in my December 20th blog post ("What Hath Copenhagen Wrought?").  In the long term, however, it is quite possible that another outcome of the December meetings may prove to be equally or more consequential.  I'm referring to the decreased credibility of the UNFCCC as the major institutional venue for international climate policy negotiation and implementation. One has to be cautious about taking too seriously some of the assertions that have been made in the printed press and the blogosphere about the death of the UNFCCC, partly because many of those commentaries come from people in the press and NGOs who – like me – suffered in Copenhagen because of the terrible logistics provided by the UNFCCC, which kept thousands of people standing outside in the bitter cold for 8 hours waiting to receive their credentials (for which they had been pre-registered) only to be turned away from the Bella Center.  I've written about that in my December 18th blog post (Chaos and Uncertainty in Copenhagen?).  However, the problems with the UNFCCC that became so apparent in Copenhagen are more fundamental than the logistical failures. Problems with the UNFCCC Process The two weeks of COP-15 illustrated four specific problems, most of which were apparent long before the Copenhagen meetings.  First, the UNFCCC process involves too many countries – about 196 at last count — to allow anything of real significance to be achieved.  As my colleague, Professor Jeffrey Frankel, observed in a panel session in which he and I participated at the ASSA meetings in Atlanta, "it's difficult enough to reach agreement in a room with 30 people, let alone close to 200."  What is particularly striking about involving 196 parties in the discussion of international climate change policy is the reality that just 20 of them account for about 90% of global emissions! The second problem – again, illustrated in spades at the Copenhagen sessions – is that the UN culture tends to polarize many discussions into two factions:  the developed world versus the developing world.  This is troubling, because the world is much more diverse than such a dichotomous distinction would suggest.  Clearly, emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and South Africa have more in common – along some key economic dimensions – with some countries in the so-called developed world than they do with the poorest developing countries, such as those of sub-Saharan Africa. The third problem is that the voting rules of the UNFCCC process require consensus for nearly all decisions, that is, unanimity.  It was lack of unanimity, by the way, which resulted in the Conference not "adopting" the Copenhagen Accord, but rather "noting" it.  After all, only 190 of 196 countries voted to adopt it.  Six nations voted in opposition, ironically accusing the 190 of "undemocratic procedures:"  Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan, Tuvalu, and Venezuela. Fourth and finally, the UNFCCC leadership in Copenhagen was – to phrase it politely – problematic, not only administratively, but substantively as well, according to delegates from a diverse set of countries. These problems (as well as others on which readers will probably comment) have caused many observers (as long as eight to ten years ago in the case of some academic economists and political scientists) to question whether the UNFCCC is the best institutional venue for productive negotiations and action on global climate change policy, or at least whether it ought to be the sole venue.  So, what are the possible alternatives? Potential Alternative or Supplementary Institutional Venues One promising venue was initiated in 2007 by the Bush administration as the "Major Emitter Meetings" – the "MEM process."  It was roundly condemned by environmental advocacy groups and by many supporters of the UNFCCC process.  Greenpeace labeled it a "dead-end diversion" – "an attempt by the Bush Administration to deflect international criticism on their do nothing attitude on climate change."  Whether or not that was the Bush administration's cynical motivation, the fact remains that it was a sensible venue for discussion. Fortunately, the Obama administration recognized that this was a promising approach, adopted it, changed its name to the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, and continued the process, now commonly referred to as the "MEF."  Several meetings have taken place – in Washington, Paris, and Mexico City – bringing together Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Those 17 countries and regions account for about 90% of global emissions.  The U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, Michael Froman, chairs the meetings.  Naturally, some nations (and some advocates) are concerned about a small set of large countries reaching decisions; and no doubt some are not comfortable with a process chaired by the United States. Another conceivable institutional venue would be the G-20, the "Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors," established in 1999 to bring together the leading industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues.  They recently turned their attention to climate change policy (in Pittsburgh in September, 2009).  The make-up of this group is similar to that of the MEF, but there are differences:  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  For some people, the good news about the G-20 playing a key role as a venue for negotiations is the presence of economic thinking; of course, this is precisely what troubles many others. No doubt, there are other conceivable multilateral negotiations that could be convened, as well as bilateral approaches, including, of course, ongoing talks between China and the United States. Don't Nail Shut the Coffin Anyone who predicts the death of the UNFCCC is probably letting their hopes infect their prognostication.  It is simply much too soon for obituaries for this important and quite durable institution. The Kyoto Protocol continues at least until the end of its first commitment period, that is, through 2012.  The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and annual national reporting functions (such as those that are key parts of the Copenhagen Accord) are likely to work through the United Nations, most likely the UNFCCC. Also, the UNFCCC has a very large constituency of support, including at a minimum most, if not all, of the G-77 group of developing countries, which actually numbers much closer to 140.  In addition, the UNFCCC has tremendous international legitimacy, and is potentially key for implementation, no matter what the venue may be for initial negotiation. The Path Forward Whether the next steps in international deliberations should be under the auspices of the UNFCCC or some smaller deliberative body, such as the MEF or the G-20, is an important and open question.  Given the necessity of achieving consensus in the United Nations processes as currently defined and the open hostility of a small set of countries, other bilateral and multilateral discussions could be an increasingly attractive route, at least over the short term. There are many questions, however, that need to be addressed before anyone can identify the best institutional venue (or venues) for international climate negotiations and action.  Such questions are now among the major foci of research by the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.  More about this in future posts. Related Post: What Bill McKibben doesn't like about the Copenhagen Accord is precisely what I like about it.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) to retire also Posted: 06 Jan 2010 05:08 AM PST Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans. Unlike the announcement yesterday of Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) to retire, this greatly increases Dem chances of holding the seat: State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is widely expected to step into the void filled by Dodd and, at least at first blush, should drastically increase Democrats' chances of holding the seat. Blumenthal, who has served as state Attorney General since 1990, is the most popular politician in the state and has long coveted a Senate seat; he had already signaled that he would run for the Democratic nomination against Sen. Joe Lieberman(I) in 2012…. Without Dodd as a foil, Republicans chances of taking over a seat in this solidly blue state are considerably diminished. Former Rep. Rob Simmons and wealthy businesswoman Linda McMahon are battling it out for the Republican nod but either would start as an underdog in a general election matchup with Blumenthal. Dodd is a good Senator from a reliably Democratic state, but got tangled up by his presidential ambitions — he moved his family to Iowa "in the fall of 2007 in hopes of generating some excitement for his bid. The move backfired on the Democratic incumbent as many Connecticut voters bristled" — and the possibility received a favorable mortgage and the fallout of the financial crisis.

Toles on the tough job of being a Senator Posted: 06 Jan 2010 04:59 AM PST People think you were elected to address more than one serious national problem a year!

Breaking: Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) to retire Posted: 05 Jan 2010 04:14 PM PST Sen. Byron Dorgan, a 18-year veteran Democrat, dropped a late-day bombshell, announcing he will retire when his term ends this year.  Dorgan's announcement represents an opportunity for Republicans: North Dakota is a Republican-leaning state, where President Obama got just 45% of the vote last year. What's bad news for the Dems in the longer term could be good news for the climate bill in the short term.  Nate Silver had given Dorgan a "Probability of Yes" vote of 22%.  He was certainly going to be among the 5 toughest Dem votes to get. But now he doesn't face a tough reelection, and the Senator from the state he himself calls "the Saudi Arabia of wind" is free to vote his conscience.  Indeed, all things being equal, I think he'd like to vote 'yes' — see post "When Sen. Dorgan finds out what's in the climate bill — hint, hint, White House — he might just support it," which I'll excerpt and update here: In July, Dorgan published an op-ed in The Bismarck Tribune with contents that mostly suggests he might actually be a real fence-sitter and filibuster buster if somebody actually explained the bill to him and worked to address his concerns — and if he didn't have to worry about reelection. Indeed, the sole objections he raises to the bill — the potential for Wall Street to engage in questionable derivatives tradings and speculative bubbles that might drive the price of CO2 soaring — are actually addressed in Waxman-Markey by multiple provisions (as I discuss here).  As an important aside, it would be almost impossible to write a bill reducing CO2 emissions that would not lead to "derivatives," which, after all, include futures contracts and options. If you are going to create a CO2 price — really the only way of reducing CO2 other than mandatory, command-and-control, sector-based emissions regulations (which it is impossible to believe Dorgan supports) — then Wall Street is going to create futures and options to allow companies to mitigate risk.  And that's a very good thing, as even conservative economists will tell you. The only question is whether you design a system with checks and balances against fraudulent derivatives and speculation, which the House bill does and which the Senate bill will no doubt improve. Now, you might say that Dorgan isn't interested in a real bill, that he is just positioning himself for a "no" vote.  Well, if so, he has written a very strange op-ed.  Let me excise all the "railing against Wall Street" stuff, and see for yourself: I'm in favor of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions and to protect our environment…. I support capping carbon emissions. But it has to be done the right way, with targets and timelines that allow us to accomplish our goals without driving the cost of energy for homeowners and businesses out of sight….. I'm willing to cap carbon to address the threat to our environment. But it has to be done right. I will support a plan that establishes workable caps, invests in technology to decarbonize fossil fuels and sends the majority of the revenue raised to consumers to offset increases in the price of electricity resulting from the caps. Energy is an important part of our lives. We need to work to decarbonize the use of coal so that we can use our most abundant fossil energy resource. We have to maximize the development of renewable energy. Green, renewable energy protects our environment and it also makes us less dependent on foreign oil (70 percent of our oil comes from other countries). Here's what we need to do to protect our environment and make us less dependent on foreign oil: 1. Establish caps on carbon that are accompanied by both adequate research and development funding and reasonable timelines for implementation to develop and commercialize technologies that will greatly reduce the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Well, that's certainly Waxman-Markey.  You can't argue the targets are too tough or that the bill doesn't spend tens of billions of dollars on technology development or deployment.  In fact, as Waxman's summary explains, the bill "Invest[s] in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion)" — see "A useful summary of Waxman-Markey." 2. Use the majority of the revenue from a plan that caps CO2 to provide refund payments to those who would otherwise experience increased energy costs. Again, that's Waxman-Markey (see Robert Stavins: "The appropriate characterization of the Waxman-Markey allocation is that more than 80% of the value of allowances go to consumers and public purposes, and less than 20% to private industry." and UPDATED exclusive report: Preventing windfalls for polluters but preserving prices — Waxman-Markey gets it right with its allocations to regulated utilities). 3. Even as we continue to decarbonize the use of fossil energy, we should maximize the production of renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and more. 4. Set an ambitious renewable electricity standard (RES) along with longer-term tax incentives for the wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy. 5. To move this new energy, we need to build a transmission system to allow us to produce renewable energy where we can, and move it to the load centers where it is needed. Check, check, and check.  Ironically, the Senate energy bill is weaker than the House on the RES, so presumably Dorgan will vote to strengthen it on the Floor.  And yes, the House RES cannot be called "ambitious" anymore, but that's in large part thanks to the huge push on renewable energy in the stimulus (see "EIA projects wind at 5% of U.S. electricity in 2012, all renewables at 14%, thanks to Obama stimulus! Now can we get a stronger renewable standard?"). 6. To reap the benefits of cleaner energy and reduced dependence on foreign oil, we need to move toward using electricity to fuel our transportation fleet. That's already in Waxman-Markey (and was in the stimulus). Love to do more, Senator. North Dakota and the nation have a lot at stake in this debate. We are a major energy-producing state, with our ability to produce large quantities of oil and our large deposits of coal, which is our country's most abundant form of energy. We have the greatest wind energy potential of any state, and we have the ability to produce a large quantity of biofuels. It's clear we are going to have to use energy differently in the future to protect our planet. And to do that I will support a plan that puts achievable caps on CO2 emissions – if it is done the right way. If that were his entire op-ed, you'd say he was at least 50-50 for the bill and certainly would be a realistic possibility for voting against a filibuster, like Sherrod Brown (D-OH).  But he rails at length against Wall Street speculators and derivatives.  Yet, his  concerns about speculators and market fraud — which Mississippi Governor (and global warming denier/delayer) Haley Barbour has been playing up, along with James Hansen and Robert Shapiro — are ones that the authors of Waxman-Markey were quite aware of when they wrote the bill. That's why the bill has many provisions (and realities) that would stop "a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives," as Hansen put it, or someone cornering the market, as Barbour put it. First off, the permit market is huge.  Even purchasing 2% of the permits in, say, 2015, would probably cost $1 billion.  And speculators would have to purchase several times that to significantly run up the price. Second, it will be so easy to meet the targets for at least the first decade (see here) that the "real" price of a permit will probably be slightly below the auction price (which has a floor).  So it will be highly unprofitable to buy lots of permits, which would run up the price, in an effort to make money selling those permits sometime in the future.  I can't imagine a plausible scenario in which this would make economic sense for any entity even if they could get away with it, which they cannot. Third, the bill requires EPA to promulgate regulations to cover the auction.  As CQ's summary of the bill explains: Bidders must disclose all parties sponsoring their bids; Individual bidders would be limited to purchasing up to 5% of allowances sold at any quarterly auction; EPA would have to publish information about winning bidders So it would be very difficult to do any major purchasing in secret and virtually impossible to acquire a large fraction of the permits. Fourth, the bill has a whole section devoted to "Carbon Market Assurance."  As the WRI summary describes it: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is given regulatory authority over allowance and offset markets and allowance derivative markets (Sec. 761, pg. 449). The President is also delegated authority to instruct agencies to take on pieces of market regulation based on existing authority as long as regulations are consistent with this section. The draft makes it a federal crime to commit fraud or manipulate any carbon market. In addition, the regulations facilitate and maintain market oversight and transparency and require market monitoring to prevent fraud, manipulation and excessive speculation. That section explicitly includes derivatives, with further oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Fifth, the bill has a Strategic Reserve (with tons originally skimmed off from each year's total target) that an entity can purchase permits from if the price sees a short-term run up of about 60%.  So again the bill will is designed to prevent someone from cornering the market or running up the price. So these concerns, while potent from a populist perspective, are simply not a reason to oppose this bill if one supports the general goal of a shrinking cap that doesn't force reductions down at an alarming pace, does mitigate most of the price risk to consumers, does spend many tens of billions of dollars on clean energy development, demonstration, and deployment, and promotes renewables (albeit not enough) and electrifying transportation system. I expect the Senate bill will be even tougher in this arena — perhaps aided by a new financial services oversight bill — since that will be needed to get the vote of other senators with similar concerns (see "Cantwell, Collins join bipartisan call for market-based carbon pricing to achieve shrinking cap on carbon"). So let's say for now that Dorgan is 50-50 or better to vote for the final bill — and maybe higher for at least cloture.  After all, what possible reason could he give to support a filibuster? Related Post: Nobelist Krugman: Fear of carbon markets and speculation is "99% wrong and bad for the planet"

Yes, the atmospheric CO2 fraction has risen at a dangerously fast rate in the past 160 years, reaching levels not seen in millions of years Posted: 05 Jan 2010 12:48 PM PST Once upon a time in a galaxy not very far away there was some scientific research that found the global carbon sinks (oceans, soils, vegetation) were not saturating — assuming, of course, that its general methodology and simplifying assumptions were in fact correct. The research, by Wolfgang Knorr, had a title that tried to do too much in too few words:  "Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?"   And so when the American Geophysical Union published this interesting-if-true study, it issued a press release with the catastrophically wrong headline, "No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years." As an aside, Joseph Pulitzer's "standing order to his staff" of reporters was:  ACCURACY. TERSENESS. ACCURACY.  For science reporting, you probably need to drop "terseness."  My motto is "better a long headline, than a wrong headline"  — especially since a large fraction of people never go much beyond the headline, even more especially in the internet age, where the headline can truly take on a life of its own. Now it's kind of scary this particular headline got through whatever editors AGU uses, since it is directly at odds with what is arguably the single most famous chart of observational data in the entire climate arena, the Keeling Curve of "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2)": In fact, not only has the atmospheric CO2 fraction (i.e. concentration) risen sharply in recent decades, it has risen at a rate that is unprecedented in the past million years (see "Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks").  As the author of 2008 study on this subject noted, "the average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume." Humans have run up CO2 levels 100 ppm over the last two centuries! The author added, ""Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium." And that makes this a truly scary fable (see Science: CO2 levels haven't been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher — "We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm."). Back to our story.  The bad headline was then picked up by Science Daily, as is their wont: [They later quietly fixed it, after being beaten up by the likes of Micheal Tobis and RealClimate -- but how about printing some sort of apology/explanation?] The anti-science gang leaped all over themselves to turn this story into a real fairy tale — without the benefit of actually having read and/or understood this study and/or, apparently, even the press release.  Ken Ward Jr. of the WV Charleston Gazette did a great debunking of one such piece of muddled nonsense by the Charleston Daily Mail's Don Surber, who declared on his blog that he had discovered "The Final Nail in the Global Warming Coffin," ending "You can fool all of the people some of the time — and some of the time is all Al Gore needed to make a pile of money." You can in fact fool some of the people all of the time, as the professional deniers prove every day.  Ward then notes that in an editorial published yesterday, the Daily Mail summarized Knorr's study this way: Then there is the contention by Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol in England that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are about where they were 160 years ago. Seriously.  And they still haven't retracted this egregious blunder. For the spin by a true extremist, see "Climate Change Fanatics Shocked as New Scientific Paper Reveals Zero Atmospheric Carbon Increase." ARE THE CARBON SINKS SATURATING OR NOT Knorr's study is, of course, only about whether the fraction of human-emitted CO2 that stays in the atmosphere — the "airborne fraction — changes over time.  He finds that it hasn't.  His work is at odds with work by Le Quéré and more than two dozen colleagues as part of the Global Carbon Project.  For an open-access paper led by the GCP, see Canadell et al., "Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks." The GCP seem to me to be doing a much more impressive and thorough job of looking at all the data and analyzing it.  Here's what they find: Between 1959 and 2008, 43% of each year's CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere on average; the rest was absorbed by carbon sinks on land and in the oceans. In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability. Changes in the CO2 sinks are highly uncertain, but they could have a significant influence on future atmospheric CO2 levels. It is therefore crucial to reduce the uncertainties. Skeptical Science has an excellent analysis of the issue and these papers, "Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?"  I must confess, though, that headline remains too opaque for the general reader.  I'd prefer something simpler and clearer, like "Are the carbon sinks saturating or not."   SS notes that if the answer is no, it's not really the "bombshell" WattsUpWithThat claims it is: The 2007 IPCC verdict on the airborne fraction was "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …. This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." (IPCC AR4) I'm not sure the move from "not much happening" "to "still not much happening" warrants the label "bombshell". It is a tricky calculation with large uncertainties, especially the farther you go back in time, since we have less accurate measurements in key areas: The airborne fraction is calculated from the rate of human CO2 emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The global increase in atmospheric CO2 has been directly measured since 1959 and can be calculated from ice cores for earlier periods. Primarily, CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel combustion with a lesser contribution from land use changes. Fossil fuel combustion is calculated from international energy statistics. CO2 emissions from land-use changes are more difficult to estimate and come with greater uncertainty. Land use emissions are estimated using deforestation and other land-use data, fire observations from space and carbon cycle modeling. The emissions from land-use change (LUC) are especially tough because there are so many hard-to-measure factors, include CO2 uptake and loss from the soils.  As the GCP explains: Emissions from LUC are the second-largest anthropogenic source of CO2. Deforestation, logging and intensive cultivation of cropland soils emit CO2. These emissions are partly compensated by CO2 uptake from the regrowth of secondary vegetation and the rebuilding of soil carbon pools following afforestation, abandonment of agriculture (including the fallow phase of shifting cultivation), fire exclusion and the shift to agricultural practices that conserve soil carbon. Unlike fossil fuel emissions, which reflect instantaneous economic activity, LUC emissions are due to both current deforestation and the carry-over effects of CO2 losses from areas deforested in previous years. Knorr makes a few simplifying assumptions about LUC which may or may not be correct, including this remarkable statement: Another finding is that reducing the land use emissions by a scalar causes total emissions to be more consistent with a model of a constant airborne fraction…  The analysis also shows that recent trends after 2000 can be explained by re-scaling land use emissions within their uncertainty ranges. I'd welcome a comment from an expert on this tricky arena of modeling net CO2 emissions from LUC, but it certainly looks like Knorr has to change his scale factor over the past decade to get a consistent answer.  That does not, of course, mean he's wrong, but again GCP and Le Quéré et al. seem to me to be doing a much more comprehensive job of trying to model this. SS notes: There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when Knorr does include this filtering in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant. Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is possibly a recent phenomenon due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability after becoming saturated. Several studies have found recent drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008). However, with such a noisy signal, this is one question that will require more data before being more fully resolved. If we're seeing the saturation of the ocean carbon sink, it looks to be a relatively recent phenomena.  After 10 years and more than 90,000 ship-based measurements of CO2 absorption in the North Atlantic, University of East Anglia researchers reached this stunning conclusion in 2007: CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005. In general, it would be awesome news if the sinks weren't saturating.  Many major climate models predict that they will — and, even worse, that some sinks will become major sources — leading to various positive or amplifying feedbacks: The defrosting of the permafrost The drying of the Northern peatlands (bogs, moors, and mires). The destruction of the tropical wetlands Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide Wildfires and Climate-Driven forest destruction by pests The desertification-global warming feedback Needless to say, this would complicate efforts to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at levels needed to preserve a livable climate and makes action now all the more urgent. CONCLUSION The moral of our fable is write better headlines and read the whole damn press release and paper before writing about it.  And since this is a fable for our times, what better way to end than with a talking bunny, Dr. Rabett, providing a version for children of all ages on Tobis's "Only In It For The Gold": There is a very simple way to put it: We know the amount of CO2 emitted by us per year (pretty well) Call it X. We know the amount of this CO2 that stays in the atmosphere (the rest goes into the oceans and the biological bits of the land). That is, for reasonable purposes X/2 or 50%. That means that 50% of the CO2 that we emitted each year remains in the atmosphere. The question is whether the fraction is changing. Maybe only 48% is absorbed and 52% remains in the atmosphere. Knorr says the fraction is not changing. Canadell says the fraction remaining in the atmosphere is increasing. Canadell is really serious trouble. Knorr is only serious trouble.

Lindsey Graham censured again by SC county party for trying to create clean energy jobs in the state, clean its air and reduce the nearly $1 billion a day we ship overseas to buy oil, "some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations." Posted: 05 Jan 2010 10:47 AM PST The Lexington County Republican Party in South Carolina voted late Monday to censure Sen. Lindsey Graham for his positions on several controversial issues, including his recent support for a compromise on cap-and-trade legislation. The Lexington GOP is now the second county party organization in a matter of months to censure Graham after Charleston County leaders approved a similar resolution in November. But unlike Charleston County, Lexington is one of the most conservative counties in South Carolina and is considered a bellwether of Republican sentiment in the state. CNN Politics reported yesterday on GOP efforts in SC to make averting catastrophic global warming and promoting clean energy jobs a litmust test.  This doubly self-destructive trend is nothing new (see Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 3: RNC Chair Steele withdraws support for Rep. Kirk over his vote on climate and clean energy bill). CNN Politics ran this caption on its photo of Graham above), "Sen. Lindsey Graham has frustrated grassroots conservatives in his home state for years."   That's pretty scary considering Graham has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 89.79.  Graham is an ACU "Senate Standout," among the 20 most conservative U.S. Senators in 2008!  Just how right-wing do you have to be not to frustrate grassroots conservatives??  They'd have impeached Reagan for agreeing to save the ozone layer! If you read this profile of Graham, then you'll know that these attacks are not likely to move him.  Indeed, he knows that he bipartisan climate and clean energy bill would be very good for South Carolina and the nation: "I believe the green economy is coming.  That's not a question of if it's going to happen, it's just when it's going to happen.  The sooner the better for me, because the jobs of the future lie in energy independence and cleaning up the environment….  Why can't America have the cleanest air?" But that's not the way the far right see it, as CNN reported: The measure passed by a 13-7 vote after more than an hour of debate, according to Lexington County GOP chairman Rich Bolen. Four party members, including Bolen, abstained. Along with criticizing his cap-and-trade support, Monday's censure resolution also rapped Graham for his vote in favor of the 2008 financial bailout and his outspoken support of immigration reform. The grassroots activists who generally make up county party organizations have never been enthusiastic about their senior senator, who has frequently crossed party lines to work with Democrats in the Senate. The language in Monday's censure resolution makes that sentiment clear. The measure criticizes Graham for failing to abide by the principles of the South Carolina GOP platform and accuses him of showing "contempt and belligerence" toward his fellow Republicans. It's going to be an epic struggle this year in the Senate — more on that later. The bottom line for now, though, is that if Graham ain't pure enough for the Palin crowd, the party is gonna have troubles (see Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 4: Moderate GOP candidate yields to angry conservative. Gingrich says if this keeps up, "we'll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama's re-election.") Related Posts: Graham, Kerry, Lieberman: "Every day, we spend nearly $1 billion to sustain our addiction to foreign energy sources and we ship Americans' hard earned dollars overseas, some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations." Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 1: Conservatives vow to purge all members who support clean energy or science-based policy Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 2: Opposing clean energy hurts GOP — Mellman

Energy and Global Warming News for January 5: Study finds Michigan's plan to fight climate change would also boost state economy; Wind farms could create thousands of new Nebraska jobs — NREL Posted: 05 Jan 2010 10:30 AM PST Independent study says Michigan's plan to fight climate change also would boost state economy Michigan could gain a significant economic boost and thousands of new jobs by reducing emissions of gases that cause climate change, according to an analysis released Monday. The report by the Center for Climate Strategies said a plan devised last year for battling global warming in Michigan would help limit the state's heat-trapping gas emissions over the next 15 years. But more than the environment would benefit, the nonprofit group said. It projected gains of 129,000 jobs, a $25 billion uptick in the gross state product and lower prices for home energy sources such as electricity, oil and natural gas. "This study validates our commitment to energy efficiency and renewable sources of fuel," said Steven Chester, director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. "It's the right thing to do for a healthy environment and a healthy economy." Gov. Jennifer Granholm in 2007 established the Michigan Climate Action Council, consisting of academic experts and representatives of industry, environmental groups and government agencies. The council last February recommended 54 steps to reduce the state's contribution to climate change. Most involved greater use of alternative energy and stepped-up efficiency in manufacturing, farming, transportation and other sectors. The panel recommended an outside analysis of the potential effect on Michigan's economy. The DEQ secured a $75,000 grant from the Troy-based Kresge Foundation for the study. Economists with Michigan State University and the University of Southern California teamed with the Center for Climate Strategies, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that has helped more than 20 states develop programs to fight global warming. Michigan began taking steps in that direction in 2008 with legislation requiring that 10 percent of the state's electricity come from renewable sources within seven years. It also ordered utilities to become more efficient. The climate action plan calls for additional steps, such as greener building construction, greater use of rail transport, more recycling and urban tree plantings. The study concluded that, combined with actions already under way, the climate action plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to more than 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2025. While acknowledging a lower-carbon economy would eliminate some jobs, the study predicted a net gain of 129,000 as alternative energy producers expand. "It's important to note that there will be winners and losers, but for the state as a whole this is a win-win and a significant one," said Tom Peterson, CEO of the climate center. Wind farms could create thousands of new Nebraska jobs Harnessing Nebraska's largely untapped wind-energy resources could create up to 40,000 jobs over the next two decades if a federal goal is met, according to a report. The report, done by the National Renewable Energy Lab for the Nebraska Energy Office, was presented at wind-energy meetings held in Nebraska in December. It says that if a federal goal of having wind energy make up 20 percent of the U.S. energy supply by 2030 is met, 7,800 megawatts of wind energy would be produced in Nebraska. Up to 4,000 of the projected 40,000 jobs would be permanent jobs lasting as long as each wind facility operated, which is typically about two decades. The report also estimated that 4,700 temporary and permanent jobs would be created over the next 20 years if wind farms generating just 1,000 megawatts – much less than the 7,800 megawatts under the federal goal – were built. Currently, wind farms in the state have the capacity to produce just 153 megawatts – significantly less than any state that abuts Nebraska. In Iowa, for example, existing wind farms have the capacity to produce more than 3,000 megawatts, and in Kansas, more than 1,000 megawatts. Wind-energy advocates trying to make the Nebraska more attractive to wind-energy developers point to the report as evidence of how the state could benefit from more wind farms. While Nebraska ranks fourth among states in wind-energy potential, according to a Harvard University report, the state ranks 22nd in actual wind-energy production. Condoleezza Rice may put global links to use as adviser to energy start-up Condoleezza Rice is on the board of directors for a new energy company hoping to take advantage of cap-and-trade legislation. The former secretary of state, who has been teaching political science at Stanford University since the end of the Bush administration, is taking a leading role in a start-up straight out of the university known for its technological prowess. The stealth start-up, called C3, is hoping to make carbon cap-and-trade systems for businesses, according to TechCrunch. Rice isn't the only politically connected player on the board. C3 also counts former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. The company is the brainchild of Thomas Siebel, founder of Siebel Systems, which was bought by Cisco in 2005 for $5.7 billion. Siebel is no political slouch himself — he took a lead role in introducing vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to California. Rice's involvement in the company could suggest it is planning on going international, leveraging her experience and relationships on a global scale. Little is known about the company, which is keeping much meaningful information under wraps. But according to filings with the SEC, it has secured about $26 million in private funding. Of course, the company's future viability depends on whether Congress adopts a cap-and-trade system, which the Obama administration has been pushing for. Trash to gas: Landfill energy projects increasing Hundreds of trash trucks across California are rumbling down city streets using clean fuel made from a dirty source: garbage. The fuel is derived from rotting refuse that San Francisco and Oakland residents and businesses have been discarding in the Altamont landfill since 1980. Since November, the methane gas created from decaying detritus at the 240-acre landfill has been sucked into tubes and sent into an innovative facility that purifies and transforms it into liquefied natural gas. Almost 500 Waste Management Inc. garbage and recycling trucks run on this new source of environmentally friendly fuel instead of dirty diesel. In a state that has passed the most stringent greenhouse gas reduction goals in the United States, the climate change benefits of this plant are twofold – methane from the trash heap is captured before entering the environment and use of the fuel produces less carbon dioxide than conventional gasoline. "We've built the largest landfill-to-LNG plant in the world; this plant produces 13,000 gallons a day of LNG," said Jessica Jones, a landfill manager for Houston-based Waste Management. "It will take 30,000 tons a year of CO2 from the environment." Altamont is one of two California landfills making LNG; the other is a smaller facility about 40 miles south of Los Angeles. Other natural gas facilities are being planned by Waste Management at some of the 270 active landfills nationwide, and the number could grow quickly as communities seek to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency counted 517 active landfill energy projects in the nation's approximately 1,800 operational municipal landfills. That was up almost 50 percent from 2000, and 28 percent from 2004. Landfills have plenty of the ingredients to produce methane. Bacteria break down the food scraps, paper, lawn trimmings and other organic waste dumped there. Over time, the material ferments, releasing methane and other gases. About 50 percent of the gas emitted from landfills is methane. It is 21 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere, the EPA said. "Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide," Tom Frankiewicz, program manager for EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program in Washington, said in an e-mail. "Methane is also the main component of natural gas, so by capturing and using methane as an energy source you get an even bigger bang for the buck." At the Altamont landfill, seagulls hover over the sprawling complex, set among the rolling green hills and wind farms of the Altamont pass about 50 miles east of San Francisco. Dotted throughout the facility are more than 100 wells with black tubes that vacuum up methane from the heap. The LNG is then pumped into the garbage and recycling trucks at a company fueling station in Oakland, while vehicles elsewhere in California get their gas at specially equipped stations. The idea of turning garbage into clean energy is not a new one – the Altamont site has had a methane-fueled electric power plant since 1989 that can power 8,000 homes a day. Hundreds of other landfills in the U.S. also use methane captured from rotting garbage for electricity projects. In 2005, the last year data was available, landfill methane electricity projects made up 10.8 percent of the country's renewable energy output, not including hydroelectric power, EPA said. Given its impact on greenhouse gases, four state environmental agencies contributed grants to help build the $15.5 million Altamont plant. Mike Beckman of Linde Group North America, the company that built and runs the natural gas plant, said the Altamont plant should continue producing fuel for 20 years or more. That makes the nascent Altamont plant potentially profitable, as the gas is sold to Waste Management and other customers. But to many who may want to use the technology, the cost of purifying the methane into usable liquefied natural gas can be a daunting barrier. The $15.5 million it took to build Altamont's LNG facility is far more than it costs to build a small electrical plant. "There is growing interest, but because removing impurities from the methane is currently quite expensive, right now it's only profitable at larger landfills where you have enough landfill gas," Frankiewicz said. "With today's economics, these projects only happen at the biggest sites in the U.S.; the thought is that as the technology becomes cheaper, that will change. " Mass. unveils landmark ocean-management plan Massachusetts has released the final version of a landmark ocean-management plan, creating a vast regulatory map for the state's coastal waters and setting new limits for offshore wind farms. The plan allows up to 266 wind turbines in state waters – 166 in two designated commercial wind farm areas and 100 more turbines scattered up and down the coast in smaller "community" projects – as the state tries to ramp up its renewable energy output. Authorized by the state's Oceans Act of 2008, the plan is designed to regulate development in state-controlled waters, which extend three miles offshore. It creates protected areas and prohibits development in state waters near the Cape Cod National Seashore. The protected habitats include eelgrass beds and submerged rocky areas that provide shelter to some of the greatest marine biodiversity in the coastal waters. The plan is also designed to shield whale migratory paths and the habitats of endangered roseate terns. Before the map, development in state waters had been handled piecemeal, said state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles. State officials say the map is the first in the country with such a comprehensive scope. Other states, including California and New York, have adopted measures designed to protect offshore ecosystems. Rhode Island is working on its own coastal management plan. President Barack Obama last year started a similar effort to draft a regulatory framework for federal waters – beyond the three-mile band of state waters. Although the plan allows up to 266 turbines, Bowles said he doesn't anticipate many of the community-based wind turbines being built – at least not soon – due to the high costs of siting and construction, although he acknowledged that technological improvements could bring those costs down. The map parcels out the number of allowed community energy projects to each of the state's seven regional planning authorities based on the length of shoreline and area of coastal waters. The plan also requires any project be endorsed by its host community. Bowles said the final version of the map improves on an earlier version released in July in part by creating tougher protections for ecologically sensitive areas, which constitute nearly two-thirds of the state's waters. The final version sets a higher regulatory hurdle than the earlier version by requiring developers show that no environmental harm will come from proposed projects in those areas – or prove that the state's data is wrong. "It's a much more difficult standard than was there before," Bowles said. Environmental groups praised the plan, saying it balances protection of vulnerable marine wildlife and habitats with responsible ocean uses. "It's a real victory for the ocean and everyone who depends on it," said Priscilla Brooks of the Conservation Law Foundation. "The bar has been set very high." The map would do nothing to block the development of the 130-turbine Cape Wind project, the nation's first proposed offshore wind farm, to be located in federal waters off Nantucket Sound. The plan establishes two new zones for commercial wind-energy projects south of Cuttyhunk Island near the southern end of the Elizabeth Islands and south of Nomans Land, off Martha's Vineyard. The plan gives local communities some say over the "appropriate scale" of any commercial wind farm in state waters. The state is also forming a task force with the U.S. Minerals Management Service to coordinate the planning and review of large-scale wind-energy projects in adjacent federal waters. The plan also sets out priorities for ocean management-related research over the next five years, including better ways to identify sensitive habitats and monitoring the effects of climate change in Massachusetts waters. Europe Plans New Power Grid to Boost Green Energy Nine countries in northern Europe are hoping to boost renewable energies by creating a new grid to balance out weather-related fluctuations, according to a German newspaper report. The €30 billion project is urgently needed to help boost green power and combat climate change. Nine European countries plan to boost their renewable power generation with a €30 billion ($43 billion) project to build a power grid of high-voltage cables under the North Sea, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on Tuesday. The cables will transport energy generated by wind power, tidal power and solar power and thereby form a basis for the continued expansion of renewable energy to help combat climate change, the newspaper reported, citing government sources. The project includes Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, Luxembourg and Norway. Under the plan, the cables will distribute wind power across large parts of Europe within 10 years. The aim is to link up offshore wind farms along the coasts of Germany and the UK with Norwegian hydroelectric power stations, tidal power stations on the Belgian and Danish coasts and wind and solar power systems on the European mainland. Officials from the nine countries had agreed to discuss cooperation in December. A first meeting of so-called "national coordinators" is scheduled for Feb. 9, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported. The countries want to agree on a letter of intent by the autumn. A spokesman for the German Economy Ministry confirmed that preparatory meetings at working group level would take place in January, followed by a "higher-ranking" meeting later on in the first quarter, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported. Leading European power companies and network operators are to take part in the negotiations because the private sector will be expected to fund most of the investment, the spokesman said. The aim is to coordinate Europe's renewable energy strategies on a technical and political level, he added. The fluctuation of renewable generation as a result of changing weather conditions has posed a major obstacle to increasing renewable power generation, and a common grid could offset those variations and provide a reliable power supply for large parts of Europe. Norwegian hydroelectrical power plants, for example, could serve as a large-scale storage facility for wind power generated in the UK and Germany. According to the newspaper, energy companies are in the process of building offshore wind turbines along Europe's coasts with a total capacity of 100 gigawatts, equivalent to about 10 percent of Europe's entire energy needs and matching the output of 100 large coal-fired power stations. Sven Teske, an expert on renewable energies for Greenpeace, said Europe's existing power grid wasn't capable of taking in the output from the new wind farms and that European power grid urgently needs to be expanded, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported. Where on Earth will we store all that captured CO2? Try the East Coast Carbon capture and storage—sucking the CO2 from power plant or industrial smokestack emissions—has been cited by everyone from the Bush administration to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a key technology in any effort to combat climate change. That's because the world—particularly China, India and the U.S.—burns a lot of coal. Deep saline aquifers or nearly empty oil wells are a few of the possibilities for where to put carbon dioxide, but what might be even better is a volcanic rock known as basalt. That's because the rock both stores CO2 and, over a relatively short period of years, forms carbonate minerals with it—in other words, limestone. Already, several pilot projects to inject CO2 into basalt and see how successfully it stores the greenhouse gas are under way, including off the coast of Oregon and beneath Iceland. In fact, the Iceland project has already begun to inject trace amounts of CO2 dissolved in water to form carbonic acid, which speeds the reaction with the volcanic rock, according to physicist Klaus Lackner of Columbia University. "They want to understand the plumbing," he told me this past November. "Drill back there 20 years from now, you shouldn't find any CO2 because it's all carbonate." Now new research from Lackner's colleagues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory led by geophysicist David Goldberg, shows that vast deposits of basalt lie off the coast of Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and South Carolina. Even better, the risk of leakage from such storage is low since the overlying ocean forms a second barrier of protection for the injected greenhouse gas. Along these lines, the Sleipner natural gas project in the North Sea has successfully stored more than 10 million metric tons of CO2 for more than a decade. Just one of the formations identified in Monday's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Goldberg et al. off the coast of New Jersey could hold as much as 1 billion metric tons of CO2. Of course, the nations of the world emit more than 30 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Ultimately, the key will be determining that the CO2 can be safely stored for the long-term. Already, a proposed coal-fired power plant proposed in Linden, N.J. includes plans to pump captured CO2 emissions into an offshore sediment, albeit not a basalt one. If CO2 emissions end up being captured at power plants, factories and other sources, the U.S. coasts in the East and Pacific Northwest might be well-placed to serve as repositories based on Goldberg's research—in lieu of the atmosphere, where the gas is currently wreaking havoc with the global climate. "The Siberian basalt traps, the Deccan flats in India," Lackner added, "there are enormous amounts of basalt [globally]." Faster Than a Speeding Carrot: A Racing Car Made Entirely from Recyclables and Vegetable By-Products A Formula 3 racing car made entirely out of recycled and renewable materials could be a sign of things to come in the automotive industry. At least, that is the hope of some British researchers who have built WorldFirst, an unusual automobile made mostly using recycled plastic water and juice bottles, potato starch, carrot fibers and other materials one normally expects to find in the recycling or compost bin. The car reaches a top speed of 238 kilometers per hour and has been driven more than 800 kilometers for testing and demonstrations since it first rolled out of the lab in April. WorldFirst was tested at Brands Hatch—a motor racing circuit in Kent, England—driven by professional racer Aaron Steele. Engineers at the Warwick Innovative Manufacturing Research Center (WIMRC) at Warwick University in England built the car as part of a larger project to develop new materials for use in the automotive and health care sectors that meet the goals of sustainable development. The WorldFirst racing car also is a response to two emerging trends in auto racing: an interest in a greener approach to the sport and the escalating costs of fielding a competitive Formula 1 racing team that have chased away some sponsors, says James Meredith, a WIMRC biomaterials engineer and WorldFirst project manager. (Formula 3 competitions are generally considered to be stepping-stones for drivers looking to compete in Formula 1 races.) The WorldFirst car is a proof-of-principle vehicle that shows it is possible to use recycled and reused materials to build a functioning automobile. "The choice of which materials to use was based on how easy they were to work with, what shape the part we needed to manufacture was, and what mechanical properties were needed," Meredith says. Recycled carbon fiber was used for the large parts of the car such as the engine cover. Fibers made from flax and hemp were used for simple parts such as the bargeboard and bib, which are used to improve aerodynamics. Other major parts of the car are made from carbon and fiberglass. The outer part of the steering wheel was made from Curran, a polymer made by CelluComp in Scotland and derived from carrots and other root vegetables. Curran has properties similar to those of glass or carbon fiber-reinforced polymer, Meredith says. The inside of the driver's seat was made from soy-based foam, while the cover consists of a fabric made from flax. The tires are still made of rubber, although tire manufacturer Avon Tyres (a division of Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.) claims it is working to eliminate one of the biggest toxic polluting compounds in them, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are used to help soften the rubber. PAHs that leach from old tires disposed of incorrectly can contaminate soil and water, and the chemical compound can become airborne in tire fires. The WorldFirst racing car runs on biodiesel derived from chocolate fat. Meredith notes that the chocolate fat used for this purpose is actually a waste product in the food industry. "Whenever you burn a biodiesel made from waste materials," he says, "it can be argued that it is carbon neutral." The radiator is coated with PremAir, a catalyst material that converts the ozone portion of the car's emissions into oxygen—something that is desirable since at ground level ozone is a pollutant. How strong and how durable are the materials in this car? "In terms of their durability—we are still working on this," Meredith says. "All the parts we have made to date are still going strong. Natural fibers will most likely have a lower resistance to weather effects as the fibers will absorb moisture if exposed and then degrade. Recycled carbon fiber and glass fiber with recycled resins should have equal durability to standard materials." Biofiber components derived from a variety of plants are already being used in some non-racing car components, says Mohini Sain, a professor of forestry at the University of Toronto's Center for Biocomposites and Biomaterials Processing. Some manufacturers use biomaterials in door panels, consoles, tire covers and floor mats. Eventually, as the technology improves, biomaterials will be used in larger components, says Sain, who was not part of the WorldFirst project. Already, some biofiber materials perform as well as glass fibers and are less dense. Sain notes that biofibers do break down when exposed to moisture, but the fibers are coated in resins and plastics to counter this. Meredith predicts the car should last as long as any other racing car, saying, "The natural fiber parts have lasted well although their weather resistance does not appear to be as good as existing materials." In the end, "ideally all the natural fiber products can be shredded and composted, carbon parts can be recycled again—albeit with a small amount of degradation," he adds.

You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Progress To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610