Recently in the Energy Category
Mar 12 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
Global warming may be having an adverse effect of hundreds of species of migratory birds in the United States. In the latest version of the annual State of the Birds report, the Interior Department claims that climate change is one of many environmental factors threatening bird populations by destructing natural avian habitats and lessening the availability of wetlands. The report asserts that coastal birds are the most directly threatened due to rising sea levels and rapidly changing marine environments.
Debate over the economic effects of California's first-in-the-nation global warming law flared this week, as a report was released claiming the law potentially will contribute to short-term job losses. Meantime, Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency claims there is a “misconception” in regards to the relationship between economic recovery and protecting the environment – with some people feeling the need to choose one or the other. “This is about rising to meet our most urgent environmental and economic challenges - not shrinking from them with the excuse that it’s just too hard,” Jackson said.
Lower levels of oxygen are being reported in the oceans and scientists are linking the findings to global warming. They warn that the oceans' complex undersea ecosystems and fragile food chains could be disrupted. In some areas in the Pacific Northwest, the almost complete absence of oxygen has left piles of Dungeness crab carcasses littering the ocean floor and killed off 25-year-old sea stars. In other spots, such as off the Southern California coast, oxygen levels have dropped roughly 20 percent over the past 25 years. Researchers recognize that areas of low oxygen have long existed in the deep ocean but say the depletion of oxygen recently reported is “striking.”
Mar 08 2010
If my math is correct, today marks the 100th celebration of International Women’s Day, a tradition first proposed by Clara Zetkin, leader of the “women’s office” in the German Social Democrat Party.
The theme this year is “equal rights, equal opportunities: progress for all.” While that’s entirely worthy, the United Nations, which began officially recognizing the day in 1975, ought to consider putting the focus on “women and energy” sometime before the next 100 years are up.
The United Nations Development Programme notes that two billion people around the world still live “off the grid,” depending on fuels such as wood and dung for heating, cooking and other basic household needs. In most societies, it falls mainly to women to collect and then use these fuels—dangerous, unhealthy and time-consuming activities that sap the ability of women to improve their education or earn a living.
Access to more efficient, cleaner, environmentally sustainable and reliable energy services is mandatory and needs to be addressed as part of the energy sector development plans in order to improve women’s status, provide them with more opportunities for income-generating work, and also improve their general health and living conditions as more effective members of their communities.
Energy, therefore, can be a key input and entry point toward achieving the third Millennium Development Goal: promote gender equality and empower women.
As previously discussed in NEXT100, a project in West Africa to introduce solar-powered irrigation allowed households to dramatically increase food yields, improving diets and netting $7 to $8 from surplus crop sales each week. The investment was a huge boon to women, who traditionally tend the gardens, by cutting the time they spend watering by 50 percent and freeing them up to earn additional money.
But just as clean energy can open doors for women, so women are essential to opening doors for new energy technology in many societies, noted Elizabeth Cecelski in a key report for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2000. If women’s needs are ignored or misunderstood, they may resist new technology that reduces drudgery in one target sector only to increase their required labor in another. As Cecelski noted,
Renewable energy manufacturers that do not pay attention to women's needs will be missing a huge potential market. Energy policymakers who ignore womens needs will be failing to make use of a powerful force for renewable energy development. Energy researchers who leave women out of energy research and analysis will be failing to understand a large part of energy consumption and production.
And let's not forget the role of women in developed societies, where the problem isn't so often access to energy as using too much of it. A national survey of women and energy last year, commissioned by Women Impacting Public Policy and the Women's Council on Energy and the Environment found that 77 percent of women say they have equal or primary responsibility for paying electricity bills, and 91 percent say they have equal or primary responsibility for using less electricity at home. By a two-to-one margin, the women surveyed cited moving toward cleaner energy sources as a more important energy goal than reliability or keeping costs low.
Sounds to me like women could become a key force in helping our own country transition to a clean energy future. That would be something to celebrate soon on International Women's Day.
Mar 05 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
Climate scientists have long declared that global warming could potentially release methane previously frozen in to the Arctic permafrost, setting off significant increases in warming trends. Now researchers at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and elsewhere say this change is underway in a little-studied area under the sea, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, west of the Bering Strait. Scientists contend that while carbon dioxide is far more abundant and persistent in the atmosphere, ton for ton, atmospheric methane traps at least 25 times as much heat.
Nearly 570 concerned scientists have signed a letter urging Congress to “oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act.” The scientists' plea comes as several coalitions of lawmakers attempt to overturn the endangerment finding using the Congressional Review Act, which establishes special procedures for disapproving regulations from federal agencies. The lawmakers claim the “Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate something like carbon dioxide.”
Is your cup of Joe on the outs? Coffee producers are creating a buzz with claims that global warming is adding risk to the long term sustainability of the industry. Many growers at the World Coffee Conference held in Guatemala this week predicted that if temperatures continue to rise, supplies of the world famous bean will decline. They contend higher temperatures are forcing their industry peers to seek higher, more costly land, driving costs up from the farm to your cup.
Feb 26 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
PG&E Corporation Chairman, CEO and President Peter Darbee and Carnegie Institution climate change expert Christopher Field released a short whitepaper for business leaders and policy makers on the scientific and economic issues central to the current conversation on global climate change and the need for a response by government and business. “My hope is that it serves to inform and engage more leaders in this issue and, ultimately, helps drive the adoption of smart climate and energy policies for our country,” said Darbee.
Want to see scientific evidence supporting global warming? There’s an app for that. Australian solar physicist John Cook of Skeptical Science has created an iPhone app that includes numerous climate skeptic arguments as well as the science-based counterarguments. So far, there are 90 climate skeptic arguments included and, of course, the scientific responses to those. You can see graphs and links to scientific papers or other sources in there as well. Cook calls the app “imperative” to the climate debate and “pretty cool.”
The non-partisan United States Geological Survey recently reported that the ice shelves on the southern Antarctic Peninsula have been retreating at an increased pace threatening coastal communities and low-lying islands worldwide. Scientists claim the pattern could lead to further accelerated glacier retreat on the continent and ultimately, sea level rise. Scientific data shows every ice front in this section of the peninsula has been retreating from 1947 to 2009, but the most dramatic changes have come since 1990.
Feb 23 2010
Tobacco killed an estimated 100 million people worldwide over the last century, according to the World Health Organization. Now researchers are turning cigarettes into plowshares, finding novel ways to turn the hardy plants into biochemical laboratories for making antibiotics, vaccines, plastics and now enzymes that can be used to produce clean energy.
Feb 19 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
The man responsible for leading worldwide global warming negotiations is leaving his post. The United Nations announced that Yvo de Boer, often called the United Nations Climate Chief, will step aside as of July 1, 2010. Recently, de Boer expressed discontent as to the outcome of the Copenhagen conference. Those who worked alongside de Boer claim they were not surprised by his decision to resign, saying he was “exhausted and frustrated.”
While you may not want it building up on your windowsill, new research claims dust could protect us from the harmful effects of global warming. That theory is being discussed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, taking place this year in San Diego, California. Scientists presenting at the conference assert that dust may limit the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) is pushing for a bill that he claims some lawmakers may accept as an alternative to renewable energy mandates. He calls it a broader clean energy standard that would require utilities to supply increasing amounts of power from specific sources, including wind, solar, biomass, clean coal and new nuclear generation. The big energy and climate bill the House approved last year includes a renewable electricity standard, and so does broad energy legislation the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved last June.
Feb 12 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
Recent polls show public support for global warming is declining but British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is denouncing warming deniers calling them “anti-science, flat-earth climate skeptics.” Brown will co-chair the United Nations High Level Advisory group on Climate Change Financing. The group aims to raise cash to halt deforestation, encourage low-carbon development and adapt to rising sea levels, extreme weather events and higher temperatures.
President Obama wants to develop a new government agency that would focus specifically on Climate Change. During his campaign, he promised the American people he would devote a good portion of his administration’s time to fighting global warming. Obama announced that in an effort to live up to that promise, he was ordering the creation of a new organization. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Service will actually be a branch of the existing NOAA but will have its own director and specific agenda.
For the next couple weeks, Olympic hopefuls will adorn their colors and put their boots into bindings in the mountains overlooking Vancouver. And they’ll be racing and jumping towards medals in mostly man-made snow. January of 2010 was the warmest January on record in Vancouver, with temperatures averaging 44.8 degrees. This is in stark contrast to recent snow storms on the east coast of the United States, which have fueled the fire for global warming skeptics. Scholars of climate science argue that neither example is proof of anything. Instead they would point to longer term trends showing a gradual warming of the whole earth over the last thirty years.
Feb 05 2010
Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:
A white roof may look like a painted masterpiece to those who want to reduce urban heat. The National Center for Atmospheric Research recently completed a study demonstrating that white roofs can be an effective method for cooling. The study’s simulations provide an idealized view of different types of cities around the world and indicate that, if every roof were entirely painted white, the urban heat island effect could be reduced by 33 percent.
According to a new report released by a leading Canadian environmental group, the city of Vancouver, which will host the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, would earn a bronze medal if fighting climate change were an Olympic sport. The report claims the event’s organizers have done a good job building energy efficient venues, but have fallen a tad short when it comes to offsetting carbon emissions surrounding the Winter Games. Environment is one of the three “official pillars” of the Olympic movement.
Just before athletes from around the world will have a chance to earn their gold, silver and bronze medals, athletes from Indianapolis and New Orleans will go after the Vince Lombardi trophy. And it is estimated that this year’s Super Bowl – which the NFL says is more environmentally responsible than in the past – will produce 310,000 pounds of carbon emissions. In addition, researchers claim the stadium in Miami will use 187,000 KW of electricity and the television sets of home viewers will consume roughly 10,004,603 KW of energy. And speaking of green, it is estimated that close to 54 million pounds of avocados will be consumed by guacamole loving fans.
Feb 01 2010
Since the Obama administration didn't succeed at first, it's try, try, trying again this year to convince Congress to phase out fossil fuel subsidies to help fight global warming.
The administration's new budget proposes ending $36.5 billion in subsidies--mostly various kinds of tax credits--for oil and gas production over the next decade in order to "foster the clean energy economy of the future and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to climate change."
And lest we forget, fewer subsidies will mean less budgetary red ink as well.
Obama is following through on a promise he made last year at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh "to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge."
While the prospect of putting a price on carbon emissions is still controversial, calls to withdraw taxpayer subsidies from polluting sources of energy should be much easier to swallow. For years, economists of many stripes have suggested that it makes little sense to subsidize production of fossil fuels--mature and highly profitable forms of energy whose price generally does not reflect the harm they cause to human health and the environment.
Industry associations, on the other hand, argue that federal "incentives" for fossil-fuel production are merited in order to promote domestic energy security and to create jobs.
Last fall, The Environmental Law Institute, in partnership with the prestigious Woodrow Wilson International Center, published an analysis claiming that fossil fuels received a vastly disproportionate share of the $100 billion in federal subsidies for energy from 2002-2008.
Traditional oil, gas and coal interests received a bit more than $70 billion in tax breaks and direct subsidies, according to the study. Corn ethanol, a controversial fuel additive, received just shy of $17 billion. Traditional renewables received only $12 billion.
Those estimates, predictably, have fueled a lively academic debate. In the long run, however, the accuracy of specific estimates doesn't matter most. What counts more is whether Congress is willing to pay the political cost of upsetting traditional interests in order to fight global warming by tilting the energy market in a greener direction.
Jan 26 2010
Clean energy enjoys huge political support. Climate change legislation, by contrast, is on life support. What critics don't realize is that putting a price on carbon emissions is the surest way to drive investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, smart grids and other clean tech innovations.
Concerned by fierce opposition to climate legislation from vocal critics, some members of Congress have called for sidelining the climate bill and focusing only on a new energy bill to promote "innovation and new technology."
That would make every politician's life easier. But as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has noted, innovation doesn't come from thin air--it needs the right market environment:
If you separate climate from energy reform, you slow your ability to create those clean jobs because every market expert tells you those energy reforms can't take hold unless you price carbon. Unless you do something comprehensive you're just going a more expensive, less effective route and you'll keep trailing other countries.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., gets it as well. As he told a recent gathering of the geothermal industry, "Most importantly, Congress needs to send the market a clear signal on the costs of global warming pollution to drive far greater investments into geothermal and every other form of renewable energy and energy efficiency."
Businesses have been saying the same message, loud and clear. In a recent ad signed by dozens of major companies, including PG&E, corporate leaders warned that "today's uncertainty surrounding energy and climate regulation is hindering the large-scale actions that American businesses are poised to make. We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate."
The same logic has also motivated major automakers to call for higher gas taxes, so consumers will buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, including hybrids.
Let's face facts. It will be many years, if ever, before renewable energy and clean nuclear power are as cheap as coal-fired power. Not until the price of coal reflects the environmental damage it inflicts will alternatives stand on their feet without massive government subsidies. That's why legislation to stabilize the Earth's climate is so critical to creating the right climate for new investments in clean energy.
