The Associated Press assigned a team to look through more than 1000 e-mails that were illegally hacked from a U.K. University server (something that the corporate media keeps overlooking: the hack was illegal, not the contents of the e-mails). What did the AP find? That the actual science surrounding climate change is very much real. Nothing was faked, nothing was doctored, no Grand Conspiracy exists. Which, in the fevered minds of denialists, means that the AP must be part of the Grand Conspiracy.
Continue Reading →
Tag Archives: GHG emissions
2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit News 12/11/09: 1st Draft Issued & Wingnuts on Parade
The first official draft on a climate deal has been written and issued. The expectation is the details won’t be worked out for another 6 months or so, which was what a lot of people were thinking going into this Summit. Keep in mind that George Bush’s crew did everything they could for 8 years to make sure the climate crisis was worse when they left than when they took power. President Obama’s administration has had only 10 months so far to undo those 8 years of damage. That little fact will be very handy when the Cons start screaming that the Summit and the U.S. President are failures. Gotta love those patriots! Back to the draft:
A key working group under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came up with a six-page text Friday. The draft may form the core of a new global agreement to combat climate change beyond 2012, when the present framework, the Kyoto Protocol, expires. However, most figures in the text are shown in brackets – meaning that there is not yet agreement on these specifics. Most importantly, the draft states that emissions should be halved worldwide by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, but it also suggests 80 percent and 95 percent reductions by that year as possible alternative options.
Those two emphasized statements are at the root of a lot of disagreement between parties, as I cover below.
2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit News 12/10/09: Sea Level Rise 3X Faster & Tuvalu’s Leadership
There was an important development at yesterday’s Climate Summit in Copenhagen that should have gotten more attention in the media. There was also a data update that provides additional context for the importance of that development.
The island nation of Tuvalu wanted legally binding language to be written establishing limits in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 parts per million and global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. For clarity, our current global CO2 concentrations, according to observations, is 387ppm. So we’re already above the limit that scientists have identified as being a threshold we should not be above if we don’t want global temperatures much higher than they are today. Tuvalu was asking, therefore, for nations to agree to reduce emissions drastically so that the atmospheric concentrations begin decreasing. Why would they want legally binding language for such an audacious goal? Because Tuvalu is a set of four reef islands and five atolls whose maximum elevation is 15ft. They are extremely susceptible to any future potential sea level rise. Larger, richer countries (like Saudi Arabia and China) would hear none of it. They want to keep burning dirty fossil fuels and expand their economies like other developed nations did for the past 150 years. Tuvalu and a group consisting of other island countries and poorer nations can’t afford to wait until China decides they’re ready to switch to 100% renewable energy at some point in the future. They’re at risk today from climate change that is already occurring. The issue was suspended for the time being. Expect it to arise again before the end of next week (not that a solution will be found in that time frame, unfortunately).
Which brings me to the bad news of the day. I’ve written for months now that the 2007 IPCC AR4 report was good for its time, but it left significant questions unanswered (I haven’t been the only one). It was good, but didn’t go far enough. Major drawbacks resulting from a far too conservative approach, an approach that didn’t examine extremes as likely enough to spend much time on. Since the collection of papers for the 2007 AR4 release, scientists across the world have worked very hard to try to begin finding answers for the toughest questions remaining. How sensitive is the climate to GHG emissions? How responsive are temperatures to those emissions? When will glaciers and ice sheets melt? What kind of sea level rise can be expected? Another paper was put together to try to answer that last question. As with other facets of the research effort, conditions could very well be much worse than what the 2007 Report may have led people to think:
Sea level rise could occur 3 times faster than previously estimated. Everybody should be able to click on the link and look at the pdf if they want. Here’s the high-level message: based on our current emissions profile, which is as high as the worst-case scenario the IPCC examined, sea levels could rise by 6 feet (~2m) by 2100. The rate at which sea levels have been rising has increased in the past 20 and 10 years. Scientists’ predictions of sea level rise have been too low, contrary to the denialists’ hopes otherwise. Natural causes alone have not and cannot explain the rise observed. Like I wrote above, Tuvalu and many other countries are under immediate threat. They have no more time to wait while rich countries throw tantrums like spoiled children. This situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.
My 9Dec2009 summary is here.
My 7Dec2009 summary is here.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
Climate Bill Action In The Senate – 9/30/09
The Senate version of the 2009 energy and climate bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, has made some small progress this week. The draft version of their version of the legislation, largely constructed thanks to Sen. Boxer and Sen. Kerry, is reported to include a 20% reduction of 2005 GHG emissions by 2020, which is slightly better than the 17% goal in the House ACES bill. This version should have been released after a 11:30A EDT press event in D.C. today. Like the House bill, a cap-and-trade system is established. Also, pollution allowances will be generated, but no distribution plan has been laid out yet.
It is well worth noting that GHG emissions are estimated to have been reduced by 6% below 2005 levels thanks to the Republican’s Great Recession. So the 20% reduction is really an additional 14% reduction, according to the Senate version, and an additional 11% reduction according to the House version. Which means it is very, very doable. Energy efficiency measures alone would likely help us achieve those reductions in time for the 2020 goal. Between now and then, as climate change effects continue to take hold, and political willpower to do something about climate change hopefully grows, technologies will be developed and marketed and it will become normal to reduce our greenhouse forcing.
Climate Change News – 5/19/09: Glaciers and GHG emissions
Wow – I did not see this report until today: Bolivia’s Chacaltaya glacier is gone. It resided at 17,388 feet above sea level for over 18,000 years. A team of researchers studying the glacier for the past 20 or so years predicted in 1999 that the glacier would survive until 2015. Just like so many other effects, this timeline was substantially moved up by still-increasing greenhouse forcing. Similar effects are likely to be felt across the rest of the Andes. Rainfall and snowfall have been decreasing for a while now. Unfortunately, millions of people depend upon the glacial melt as their water source.
The World Resources Institute estimates total GHG emission reductions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 73% below 2005 levels by 2050 if the measures put forth by the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft, based on just pollution caps. They further estimate that with complementary requirements, emissions would be reduced 31% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 76% below 2005 levels by 2050. As I discussed yesterday, the Discussion Draft has been weakened already. Once the final bill is signed into law, I look forward to seeing analyzed estimates from WRI and others.
Americans Favor GHG Regulation, Despite Potential For Higher Energy Costs
A super-majority of Americans support the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by the federal government, while recognizing that doing so might increase energy costs in the short-term. In other words, the lies perpetrated on the American people by climate change denying Cons and their allies are falling on deaf ears. Their false messaging is no longer working – Americans are beginning to realize the dangers involved with continuing along the path we’ve been on and are supporting efforts to change to a better path.
To complete the picture, this is all happening despite a profound lack of interaction between even President Obama and Americans, but in a larger sense, climate change realists and Americans. Very little effort has been made thus far to generate large-scale communication to Americans about the Waxman-Markey climate action plan, for instance. The wonks are doing their thing in their little bubble and the American people are being left to fend off Con talking points coming from every corporate media source out there. I know Al Gore and Van Jones and many other individuals are doing their best to educate Americans about the dangers of climate change, but I would feel much more confident about climate change legislation if more large-scale messaging was being conducted.
Back to the primary subject of this post, ABC and the Washington Post conducted a telephone poll from April 21-24 of 1,072 adults. They were looking for hot-button issues and GHG regulation made the list (I recommend taking a peek at some of the other questions – their wording is absolutely horrible). The first question and the response breakdown were as follows:
Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Should: 75% (strongly: 54%, somewhat: 21%)
Should not: 21% (strongly: 12%, somewhat: 9%)
No opinion: 4%
Those are pretty strong results considering the amount of money fossil-fuel corporations have blown on full-page newspaper and television advertising. I would say that as of now, thankfully, they’re not getting their money’s worth. 75% of those polled think GHGs should be regulated. That’s actually quite amazing taking the entire set of current events into account.
Water Efficiency Post Chock-Full of Amazing Numbers
Moving forward toward a greener future includes not only renewable energy and energy efficiency but efficiency in general. We are a very wasteful society – largely because there was little downside to generating the waste when infrastructure was first put in place. As more of us have swelled the size of society, that waste has become more important. I wanted to share some results I read about in this Climate Progress water efficiency post, which started out about Santa Clara, California water conservation efforts and moved onto larger studies and examples.
The results have been impressive: a savings of 370,000 acre-feet of water in 13 years. (A typical household uses one acre-foot of water per year).
But perhaps even more significant have been the energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: 1.42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 335 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equal to taking 72,000 cars off the road for a year.
That’s right: water efficiency translates to energy savings.
In early March, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009 sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The bill’s main emphasis is to study the impact of energy development on U.S. water resources, but it also calls on the Department of Energy to periodically assess the energy consumed in the delivery, treatment, and use of water.
That study is important: if nobody knows the extent of a potential problem, it’s harder to come up with potential solutions like crafting legislation to promote water conservation efforts. We know governments at every level offer varying tax credits for energy efficient windows, new water heaters, solar paneling and geothermal systems. Similar credits don’t yet exist on a large scale to assist consumers who want to buy water efficient items like dishwasher, clothes washers, faucets, toilets, etc. To boost energy savings nationally; to reduce as much demand on fossil fuel plants as possible; to reduce our GHG pollution, water conservation measures should join energy efficiency measures as programs that need to be supported.
More information [emphasis mine]:
In “Energy Down the Drain,” a 2004 study of the hidden costs of California’s water supply, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute found that the “end use of water–especially energy-intensive uses like washing clothes and taking showers–consumes more energy than any other part of the urban water conveyance and treatment cycle” and that “significant amounts of energy” can be saved through conservation. For example, one of their case studies found that if San Diego provided its next 100,000 acre feet of water through conservation instead of transporting it from northern California, the energy savings would be enough to supply 25 percent of San Diego households.
Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if just 1 percent of American homes replaced old toilets with water-saving ones, it would reduce energy consumption by 38 million kWh, enough to electrify 43,000 homes for a month. This of course translates into financial savings. Implementing just a few water efficiency measures could save up to $170 annually on water and sewage bills, which on average are about $500 annually for an American household. If each U.S. household had seven water-efficient appliances, it would save $18 billion annually, according to the EPA.
In contrast to projects that might be more popularized, such as solar panels and geothermal, water conservation projects are cheaper and return their cost faster. That should make them more marketable in the short term, especially in our current recession.
In its publication “Water Efficiency for the Home,” the Rocky Mountain Institute offers some examples: In 10 years, an efficient showerhead will return 10-40 times its cost in saved energy alone, and inexpensive replacement faucets can reduce indoor water use by 3-5 percent and pay for themselves in less than a year.
[...]
Case in point: In a December 2008 study, the Alliance for Water Efficiency found that a $10 billion stimulus that focused on retrofitting homes with water-conserving appliances and fixtures, installing smart outdoor irrigation systems, and improving commercial and industrial water applications could create between 150,000 and 220,000 jobs and generate as much as $28 billion in economic output.
$10 billion can create over 150,000 jobs and generate $28 billion in economic output. Those are incredible numbers. Does the private sector have $10 billion sitting around? If it does, is it willing to pony it up to create those jobs and that economic output? If it is, why hasn’t it done it yet? No – the only entity that has the money and the incentive to put it on the table is the government. Anti-Obama-ites can mock and disparage the government all they want, but they don’t have access to those kinds of funds (or if they do, they’re unwilling to do something similar, which works out to about the same thing in the end). Obviously, they don’t have the interest in generating those jobs either. Those hypocrites who let the Bushies spend trillions of dollars occupying sovereign nations and are now “angry” at Obama spending money on America don’t want solutions. To them, it’s ideology over country. That’s why I’m glad Climate Progress, realists in the Senate, the NRDC, the Pacific Institute, a science-based EPA, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Alliance for Water Efficiency and many others exist. They’re doing the heavy lifting to make this country greater and help solve our water and climate crises.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
Quick Hit: Denver Has 7th Most Energy Efficient Builings in Nation
In the past 10 years, a good deal of attention on energy efficient buildings was generated in the Denver, CO metro area. Activists and forward-looking elected officials have helped boost Denver to the 7th Most Energy Efficient City, according to recent E.P.A. ratings.
Energy efficiency is the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are forcing the climate system. Given recent scientific papers detailing more rapid warming of the planet, I think Energy Star buildings should be made mandantory by municipalities.
Climate Change Occurring Faster Than Predicted & Other Climate-Related News
Additional examples of how out-of-date the 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was at the time of release continue to be issued. The latest: a World Wildlife Fund report which acts as a summary of recent scientific papers and reports. The summary: climate change is occurring faster than was presented by the IPCC last year. Indeed, NOAA recently released an arctic report that identifies stronger effects of warming on Greenland and permafrost. The next IPCC Report will be released in 2013, meaning most of the work towards it will be done during the next President’s term. Actions taken during the next four years will have ramifications on the future state of the climate. Recognizing that the 2007 Report has already underestimated the impacts of human-forced climate change should harden the next administration’s actions.
On a related note, a slowing economy won’t help the climate. Emissions don’t just have to dip for a short while. They have to stop. Then the GHGs that we have already emitted have to be put into a emission-sink. The oceans are nearly at capacity for carbon, so large challenges remain.
Obama is set to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant. Good. The action could stop plans to build dozones of coal plant. Obama’s energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said that if Congress didn’t act within 18 months, Obama would take action by himself. My question: why wait 18 months? We simply don’t have the time. I understand that Obama is making clear his respect for the legislature’s role, but 18 months is a ridiculous amount of time when the Bush administration has spent the past 8 years making sure we took no action. At the same, I realize how important it is to have a Presidential candidate with a serious energy adviser.
Europe toughens GHG goals, not allowing economic slowdown to delay their activities. Good for them. Plenty of CONServatives in the U.S. are already saying the recession precludes any action on GHG emission goals, or any other climate change action. Will America follow Europe’s lead?
Random Pieces 3/24/08
Sounds responsible to me: “At this time, there are too many unanswered questions surrounding the development of oil shale. We continue to support the research, development and demonstration process now underway, but the RD&D process should be completed prior to the issuance of commercial oil shale leases and prior to the finalization of any regulations.” (Gov. Ritter’s press release regarding oil shale development.) In Republican-land, there will never be enough RD&D about climate change. Oil shale development? No RD&D or regulations needed.
