India Poised for 25 Years of Increased Coal Burning

While scientists in the US are calling for a moratorium on the building of coal-fired plants to limit greenhouse gas emissions India has plans to quadruple its burning of coal during the next 25 years according to a report by Reuters. To make sure his country has enough coal to burn the minister for coal in India says that India is acquiring “coal properties abroad.” Based on India's plans, world climate scientists apparently have even less influence in India than they do here in the US. According to the UN, India is already number four in the world on the list of greenhouse gas emitters. With about 150 coal-burning plants in various planning stages in the US it hard to see how we are in position to urge India to change its plans in order to prevent possible catastrophic climate change.

China on Verge of Becoming Number One Greenhouse Gas Polluter

Less than a year ago we were told that China would surpass the US as the top emitter of greenhouse gases by 2020. Several months ago the date was surprisingly revised to as soon as 2009. It has now been revised again. According to a report by the San Francisco Chronicle, China will become the world’s top greenhouse gas polluter as early as this year or perhaps in 2008. Thanks to China’s booming economy consumption of fossil fuels grew by over a whopping 9% last year, a typical figure since 2001. In the US, which is no slacker when it comes to burning fossil fuels, the growth rate was a mere small fraction of China’s rate, 1.2%. For those optimistic about the ability of the world’s nations to reduce greenhouse gas emission by a sufficient amount to avoid potential catastrophic climate change, hearing the figures coming out of China has to be a reality check. What could be less comforting than to realize the fate of the world might be in the hands of a country with 1.3 billion people governed by one party that is hell-bent on attaining a level of prosperity that is comparable to that of Western countries and without the technological know how to try to achieve their goal without very heavy reliance on burning coal, the fossil fuel that creates the most carbon dioxide when burned. Something has to take the place of China’s building about one new coal-fired power plant a week as they have been doing if the global warming problem is going to be successfully addressed. The question is, exactly what?

Dakotas Need to Step It Up for National Day of Climate Action

With only 45 days left until April 14th when Step It Up actions to tell Congress to cap carbon emissions are scheduled to take place across the United States there are 753 actions planned so far but still no actions planned in two states, North Dakota and South Dakota. What is the story in the northern plains? There are so many actions planned here in the Northeast that several small states on the Step It Up 2007 website map have disappeared under the masses of colored dots representing actions. Has Al Gore been banned from the media in the Dakotas? Not much is happening in some other western states as well. For example, there is so far only one action being planned in Wyoming and only two in Nebraska. There are more actions planned here in my county situated north of New York City than in these four states combined. With participation showing distinct regional patterns one has to wonder how the message of this day of action will play inside the Beltway.

Bulldoze Coal-Fired Power Plants Before 2050 Says Climate Expert

The Houston Chronicle reports that well-known NASA climate scientist James Hansen is calling for all older coal-fired power plants that do not capture and store the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to be bulldozed before the middle of the century. Hansen is also calling for a cessation of the building of coal-fired power plants. To put this in context, over 150 such plants are in the planning stage in the United States. Hansen is speaking today at the National Press Club.

Hansen believes that energy efficiency measures can make the sharp reduction in coal use that he calls for feasible. Since coal is used for about one half of all electricity generated in the United States these energy efficiency measure would have to be sweeping. Since climate scientists say that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 to limit global warming to a level that would not be catastrophic Hansen’s proposal seems quite sensible. The alternative, of continuing to use coal to meet increasing energy demand in the United States, can only lead to disaster on scale that is difficult to contemplate.

Only Carbon Neutral Presidential Campaign Bites the Dust

It seems like only yesterday that I posted that former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack was trying to make his campaign for president of the United States carbon neutral. In fact, it was eleven days ago. Somehow in less then two weeks Vilsack has gone from taking the lead on global warming in the presidential derby to dropping out of the race. For those hoping that Vilsack would push the other Democratic candidates to raise the global warming issue to a higher priority this is a disappointing development. While the three leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, appear to be leaning heavily on focus group results with regard to global warming based on their campaigns so far, one had a sense that Vilsack might be responding to the urgency that the issue requires which is obvious from the results of scientific research over the last several decades. Perhaps some other candidate will fill the void left by Vilsack’s absence or another candidate (Al Gore perhaps) will enter the race to take up where Vilsack left off.

List of Planned Actions for National Day of Climate Action on April 14th is Growing

There are now more than 700 global warming actions planned for April 14th according to the Step It Up 2007 website. Based on a map of the US shown on the site, the region of the country where this day of action, which was started by author Bill McKibben, has generated the most response is here in the Northeast. I am involved in the planning of a few of these actions through my local Sierra Club group. Here is what Bill McKibben says this day is about:

Every group will be saying the same thing: Step it up, Congress! Enact immediate cuts in carbon emissions, and pledge an 80% reduction by 2050. No half measures, no easy compromises-the time has come to take the real actions that can stabilize our climate.

Clearly, political pressure for global warming legislation is needed for action to occur. Overcoming the conservative opposition to the mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions that are needed to confront the problem remains a formidable challenge. Congress really does need to be told to step it up.

Americans Remain Uncertain Over Climate Change Problem

It seems that no matter how many prestigious scientific bodies proclaim that global warming is an extremely threatening problem many Americans remain uncertain about what to believe. The latest scientific organization to jump into the fray is the American Association for the Advancement of Science which in no uncertain terms declared yesterday at its annual meeting that “global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and is a growing threat to society.”

Some scholars at the meeting gave talks trying to explain the lack of connection between the climate change research findings of scientists and the beliefs of the American public.

LifeScience reported that Jon Krosnick from Stanford University said that although Americans are in tune with these scientists on the basics they are uncertain about how bad the problem of global warming really is. Krosnick said that survey results show that whereas a mere 7% of the American public report extreme certainty about their views and 25% claim to be very sure, 41% report being only somewhat sure. It is this lack of absolute certainty says Krosnick which prevents many Americans from having a high level of concern about the problem even though they accept the scientific findings.

A report from Daily India described the conclusions drawn by Anthony Leiserowitz from the University of Oregon who analyzed the results of a national survey on global warming conducted in 2003. Leiserowitz said the survey responses showed that issues such as Iraq and healthcare are given a much higher priority than global warming.

A results of a more recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press suggest that many Americans actually do not accept the research findings of climate scientists. The survey found that only 47% of Americans think that there is enough solid evidence to say that humans are the main cause of global warming although about 75% do believe that global warming is taking place.

It is hard to imagine what could convince far more Americans that it is urgent to begin taking action to limit global warming. The science is out there. Al Gore has brought the message to the masses. Many prominent politicians are on board. Perhaps the only thing left is for conservative political leaders and news pundits to admit that immediate action should be taken to cap greenhouse gas emissions but that seems to be asking for the impossible.

Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from Agricultural Sources Not Receiving Much Attention

The focus of preventing runaway global warming has been on reducing carbon dioxide emissions as it should be, but lost in the discussions seems to be the need to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions, particularly from agricultural sources. The accompanying illustration from Global Warming Art shows that a good chunk of greenhouse gas emissions is in the form of methane and nitrous oxide and a good portion of these two greenhouse gases comes from agriculture (light green). The role of agriculture in global warming was emphasized in a report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow” which was issued last year by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Here is a quote from the Executive Summary:

With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race.
The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.
The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes especially deforestation caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

When it comes to taking action to stop global warming we hear a lot about using renewable energy sources, more energy efficiency, and occasionally practicing energy conservation, but very little is said about taking measures such as eating less meat or even becoming a vegan. Will any of the many candidates running for president in the United States give up eating meat and ask their campaign staff to do the same? Extremely unlikely. However, the more methane and nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced the less reduction of carbon dioxide emissions will be needed which is important because it is very difficult to greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions since it largely requires replacing coal and oil as energy sources.

Leading Dem Presidential Candidates So Far Say Little About Global Warming

Looking over the websites of the three leading Democatic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, it would be hard to conclude that we are faced with a climate crisis that threatens to wreck havoc with human populations unless urgent action is taken. The sites of Clinton and Edwards do emphasize the issue of energy independence but do not say anything about global warming. The only candidate in the field that seems to be seizing on the issue of global warming at this very early stage of the campaign is Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa. He has issued a statement on energy and the environment which includes the following:

In particular, we should move immediately to impose a cap on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and businesses, and create a market-based system of tradable credits that rewards investments in innovative clean energy technologies. At the same time, America must undertake a national push for public and private investment in clean and renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, and biofuels, and in the technologies that can make them affordable and readily available.

The campaigns for Congress in 2006 seemed to focus on the issue of energy independence and ignore global warming. It appears that neither Clinton, Obama, or Edwards have really gone beyond this but clearly Vilsack has and he is also trying to make his campaign carbon neutral. It will be good news if Vilsacks’ emphasis on combating global warming turns into campaign support. If it does, the other candidates may realize that the issue of global warming deserves much more attention than they have been giving it.

A Presidential Campaign Goes Carbon Neutral

Running for president of the United States these days can generate a lot of carbon dioxide emissions with all the plane flights crossing the country, offices churning out campaign literature, and so forth. According to a report in the Contra Costa Times one of the Democratic presidential candidates, Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, has decided to try to offset all of the carbon dioxide emissions that his campaign produces. His strategy is based on paying money to a company in Vermont that invests in renewable fuels. With regard to global warming, Vilsack’s communications director is quoted as saying “No question that this is one of the, if not the most important issue in the presidential campaign.” This suggests that Vilsack really “gets it.”

It will be interesting to see if any other presidential candidates attempt to elevate global warming as an issue to the level that Vilsack appears to be trying to do. Since Vilsack’s strategy includes the controversial topic of carbon offsets this could make him a political target as well as someone to emulate.

Deep Saline Aquifers Found Suitable for Long-Term Carbon Dioxide Storage

Reuters has reported that researchers have found that carbon dioxide could be stored for centuries by injecting it into deep saline aquifers. One member of the research team, Ruben Juanes from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was quoted as saying “We have shown that this is a much safer way of disposing of CO₂ than previously believed because a large portion—maybe all—of the CO₂ will be trapped in small blobs in the briny aquifer.” If this type of sequestration is feasible the CO₂ gas emitted from coal or gas power plants could be trapped and injected for very long-term underground storage. Since CO₂ is considered to be the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming this research finding would seem to provide some additional hope that the warming of the Earth from greenhouse gas emissions can be contained. The main concern over sequestration methods has been slow leakage of CO₂ from the storage site. This study appears to address that concern.

Last year researchers reported that carbon dioxide could be permanently stored in deep-sea sediments. This would seem to represent a problem with regard to transporting carbon dioxide emitted from power plants far from the ocean to deep-sea sites for storage. Perhaps it would be more feasible for plants along the coast. Certainly the deep saline aquifer storage strategy would seem to make more sense when logistics is taken into account.

Global Warming Legislation Will Be Controlled by John Dingell’s Committee

For anyone hoping for sweeping improvements in auto fuel efficiency in the United States it might be a good idea to be prepared for a considerable wait. According to the Detroit Free Press, an agreement among Democrats in the House of Representatives states that all climate change legislation will be under the control of the Energy and Commerce Committee which is chaired by John Dingell from Michigan. The agreement stipulates that the special global warming committee formed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have no legislative power.

While John Dingell is no James Inhofe, the senator from Oklahoma who has proclaimed that global warming is a hoax, neither is he another Al Gore. The quote below suggests he might in fact be closer to Inhofe. As I reported in a previous post, when asked by an interviewer whether a scientific consensus on global warming has been established Dingell replied:

"This country, this world, the [human] race of which you and I are a part, is great at having consensuses that are in great error. And so I want to get the scientific facts, and find out what the situation is, and find out what is the cure, and find out what is the cure that is acceptable to the country that I represent and serve."

So much for scientific consensus found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released last Friday.

Among environmentalists Dingell is best known for his years of opposing increases in fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles. Essentially all strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions call for sizable improvements in fuel efficiency standards. One of the great questions we now face, therefore, is whether Dingell is ready to compromise on the issue of fuel efficiency standards or not. For the sake of humankind as well as numerous species of animals, let’s hope so.

Geoengineering the Climate from the Perspective of James Lovelock

In an interview posted on FirstScience.com the well-known British scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock, who proposed the Gaia hypothesis, had some things to say about geoengineering proposals to combat global warming which sounded rather positive. His extremely pessimistic view of the global warming situation and his advocacy of nuclear power as part of the answer have gotten a lot of press recently whereas his views on geoengineering seem to be relatively unknown. In the interview he comments on two specific schemes. One involves placing sunshades in space at the point between the Earth and the Sun that is gravity neutral. Lovelock says that “It would take a lot of time and a lot of politics to get it working, but it might happen.” The other scheme involves dispersing tiny particles of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight as way of mimicking the effects of an erupting volcano. According to Lovelock “if commercial airlines could burn sulphur-rich fuel (unrefined kerosene) as they fly, instead of the highly-refined stuff, it would put enough sulphur in the atmosphere to give you a Pinatubo every couple of years.”

These type of schemes are generally considered to be something to be used as a last resort if greenhouse gas emissions cannot be reduced to limit global warming. With greenhouse gas emissions now increasing worldwide at about 3% per year and no plan in sight to alter this trend the likelihood that a method of last resort will actually be used to try to stop global warming seems to be growing more likely every day.

IPCC Report Unlikely to Generate Major Global Warming Action in US for at Least Two Years

If this were a rational world the report released yesterday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see realclimate.org for early analysis) would have politicians around the world spending their weekend figuring out what to do to save our planet. But this world is anything but rational and in the US our president is much more interested in instilling fear about terrorism than about global warming. The difference is that fighting terrorism doesn’t require a lot of government regulations whereas fighting global warming does. That is why we will have to wait until 2009, when a new president takes office to see if the dire warnings in the IPCC report lead to real action that begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whomever this new president is, he or she would have to make fighting global warming a top priority and the Senate and House would have to be able to get enough votes to support effective legislation. Admitingly this is a long shot, particularly if Iraq continues to dominate politics in the US. One of the great unknowns looming out there is whether effective implementing of energy efficiency and renewable energy would be enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US to the desired goal or whether strong conservation measures that would include drastic changes to lifestyle would also be needed. It is obviously difficult in a democracy for a politician to advocate sacrificing a luxurious way of life. Making the case for a Spartan lifestyle is probably not going to win many votes.

Scientists Say Dangers of Global Warming are Exaggerated at Elite High School Forum in NY

As the world’s leading climate scientists raise concerns about the possible catastrophic risks of global warming in Paris at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it was a little surprising to open my local newspaper, The Journal News, and find out that an environmental panel of scientists speaking at Bronxville High School, one the more elite public high schools in the US, didn’t think there was much cause for alarm. The panel included one of the leading scientific skeptics Richard Lindzen from MIT. According to Lindzen, there is research showing that there will be only a slight increase in global temperature during the next 100 years. Klaus Jabob, a scientist from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, agreed. Another scientist on the panel, Amos Linenberg, said that he was more worried about polluted drinking water than global warming. On the side taking action to fight global warming was an environmental lawyer and a college student environmental activist. The newspaper article failed to point out that almost all the world’s climate scientists would strongly disagree with these scientists on the panel providing another example of dismal journalism that pervades our media when it comes to global warming. In this case neither the school nor the press did their job in presenting the scientific picture of global warming which most climate scientists endorse.

R&D for Sunlight Blocking Schemes Advocated by US for UN Climate Change Report

The Guardian has reported that the US response to a draft of the UN report on climate change prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which will be released in three parts beginning on February 2nd says that a statement advocating research on the development of technology to block sunlight as a way of stopping global warming if other measures fail should be included. Schemes to block sunlight that have been suggested so far include giant space mirrors, sulphate droplets scattered into the atmosphere, and distributing into the atmosphere tiny shiny balloons. According to the Guardian the US wants the following statement placed in the policymakers statement at beginning of each report:

“Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.”

The IPCC draft said that sunlight blocking schemes were “speculative, uncosted and with potential side-effects.”

Although these ideas to block sunlight as a way to combat global warming are often considered as wacko, and in most cases the US position seems counterproductive to stopping global warming, in this instance I have to say that I agree with the US. If the goal as is often stated is to limit global warming to a 2°C increase above preindustrial levels and to achieve this requires that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels can not rise above 450 parts per million and this would require a worldwide reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the order of 70% to 80% by the year 2050 then I think we have to face the fact that although this is probably theoretically possible the political obstacles make it an almost impossible goal to reach. The list of political hurdles to overcome seem nearly endless. A large majority of the US population would have to be convinced that global warming is linked to human activities. A carbon tax or the equivalent would have to accepted around the world. People in developed countries would have to accept limitations on lifestyle. China and India would have to agree to reduce emissions and Western countries would probably have to pay for their implementation of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to make this possible. Tremendous investments would have to be made for research on new energy technologies. The ability of the oil and coal industries to successfully fight change would have to be overcome. Etc, etc, etc.

Sunlight blocking schemes at best can only buy time and might cause unexpected adverse consequences. However, we are now at point of time where I think we need a Plan B.

Poll Finds Most Americans Still Unconvinced About Human Role in Global Warming

The results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that although about three fourths of Americans believe our planet is warming only 47% believe that there is solid evidence to implicate human activity as the main cause. If Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and our leading climate scientist James Hansen can’t convince the majority of Americans that human activity is to blame for the rising global temperature who can? Does it have to be written in the Bible? Actually, perhaps the polling results are not surprising. Tens of millions of Americans don’t believe in Darwinian evolution although the scientific evidence is overwhelming. How about this statistic? Whereas 61% of Americans thought that an immediate government response to global warming was needed when polled last August the number fell to 55% this January. Sounds as though not enough Americans read about the Stern report a couple of months ago which predicted economic disaster from climate change if action was not taken. Supposedly the fourth report from the Intergovermentmental Panel on Climate Change which will be released on February 2nd contains a statement that there is a 90% probability that global warming is due to human activity. In scientific terms, that is a very strong statement. But with the report being released only two days before the Super Bowl will Americans be paying attention?

Beware of Bush’s “Clean Fuel” Proposal

George W. Bush may have gained a little political breathing room on the global warming issue in his State of the Union address with his proposal to replace a portion of gasoline use with biofuels but many environmentalists are far from impressed by the proposal according to an article in The Independent. One environmentalist pointed out that using ethanol to replace gasoline would result in carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation and processing of ethanol. Also, in industrialized countries fossil fuels play a large role in growing crops such as corn that can be used for making ethanol. Another criticism involved transforming coal into a liquid for use as a transportation fuel. It was pointed that this technology would result in twice the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted as fuels based on petroleum. Although Bush seems to have at least grasped that global warming is a serious problem it is apparent that we will have to wait for a new president in 2009 before anyone occupying the Oval Office offers truly serious proposals, such as a mandatory cap on carbon emissions, to avert the very real risk of catastrophic climate change.

Urgency to Curtail Global Warming Missing from State of the Union Speech

George W. Bush did manage to utter the words “global climate change” in his State of the Union speech last night but only as an afterthought to the issue of energy independence. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen from NASA who have been warning us that we have less than 10 years to begin worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the risk of unstoppable global warming may as well be residing on another planet as far as Bush’s descriptions of the major problems that we face. It appeared that television commentators were complicit in ignoring the urgency of addressing global warming as usual. The rebuttal by the Democrats also completely ignored the problem which didn’t help.

Perhaps some Democrats who are campaigning for president can elevate the issue of global warming to the top of the national agenda where it belongs. Perhaps they can close the present disconnect between scientific understanding and political policy. Perhaps one or more of the candidates can break through the denial which still seems to envelop much of the US population. There are about 150 coal-fired power plants on the drawing board in the US and in China about one such plant is built every week. Someone better do something fast.

Organizing for Global Warming Actions on April 14th

Author Bill McKibben and a few of his associates are trying to start a global warming movement and they have picked April 14th as the day to begin. The idea has received a warm reception and people all over the country are beginning to organize. I am trying to pitch in here in Westchester County, New York. According to McKibben:

If we're going to make the kind of change we need in the short time left us, we need something that looks like the civil rights movement, and we need it now. Changing light bulbs just isn't enough.

I agree that we need to take to the streets but I can’t imagine a global warming movement ever approaching the civil rights movement in size or intensity. How many people are willing to go to jail over global warming? Or worse, risk death? I think if a global warming movement does gain traction it probably will look much different than the civil rights movement. Nonviolent civil disobedience simply doesn’t seem appropriate in the global warming context. Perhaps a new model for a movement needs to be invented. Building an effective global warming movement may be as difficult as taking the needed type of actions to curtail global warming. But, ultimately I think that McKibben is right in trying.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue to Spike

It is bad enough that climate change is occurring more rapidly than scientists predicted, but things may be even worse because now we are finding out that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing faster than they predicted. For 30 years, starting with 1970, the average increase in carbon dioxide was about 1.5 parts per million. Based on estimates of carbon dioxide emissions there did not seem to be any reason for this trend to change. Yet, beginning in 2001 carbon dioxide levels have spiked to average about 2.2 parts per million and that trend has continued through 2006 according to a report in the Guardian. What this seems to mean is that when climate scientists such as James Hansen say we have less than 10 years to begin to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid extremely serious consequences of global warming this warning may not even be urgent enough. Further concerns are raised because the cause of the spike has not yet been identified. Whether it is due to warming itself, emissions that actually exceed estimates, or some other reason remains obscure. As time goes on it appears that the truth about global warming is growing more and more inconvenient.

Are Pelosi and Dingell on a Collision Course Over Global Warming?

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representative, wants to legislate a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is from Michigan has been a long time protector of the US auto industry which seems to specialize in selling Americans gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. Pelosi knows that Dingell is a formidable roadblock to getting her legislation through and according to the Associated Press has come with the idea of sidestepping Dingell and any other House committee chairmen in her way by forming a select committee to work on global warming legislation. If Pelosi succeeds with her strategy she would ultimately have to confront President George W. Bush, an even more formidable roadblock to achieving mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Pelosi clearly has her work cut out for her as she sets out on this political obstacle course that she needs to somehow navigate through if the problem of global warming is ever going to be seriously confronted.

Climate Change Edges Doomsday Clock Closer to Midnight

The well known “Doomsday Clock” with a minute hand that has been moved over the years closer and further from midnight as fears of nuclear war have increased and ebbed has now been moved two minutes closer to midnight because of increasing fears about climate change. According to BBC News the lastest move puts the minute hand at five minutes to midnight, which is as close as it has been to the doomsday mark since the height of the Cold War. This is the first time that the famous clock, which was devised by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, has reflected any threat other than nuclear weapons.

Whereas the threat of nuclear war tends to waiver back and forth it is hard to see how the threat of climate change will do anything but grow during the coming decades. With climate change in the mix the minute hand may in the future be moved in only one direction as the countdown to what seems like almost inevitable catastrophe begins.

Former US Kyoto Protocol Negotiator Pessimistic About US Entering International Global Warming Agreement

Stuart Eizenstat, who during the 1990s led the US team that was involved in negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, doubts that the US will enter into a binding international-level agreement to reduce carbon emissions any time soon. According to Eizenstat, for the US, the Kyoto agreement is “radioactive.” Of course, given the short time frame that is now available to take worldwide action to begin reducing emissions soon enough to avoid catastrophic climate change if Eizenstat is right we are charging headlong toward eventual disaster. Intense public pressure should be able to speed up US actions to take a leadership role on the global warming issue but whether such political pressure from the public can be generated in time remains to be seen.

Slide Shows Featured in Global Warming Grassroots Movements

Large numbers of Americans will see a global warming slide show in person this year as slide show presenters from Al Gore’s global warming campaign and from the Sierra Club give presentations before audiences in communities across the country. Al Gore has trained about 1,000 people to give a version of his "An Inconvenient Truth” slide show which was seen in his very successful documentary film. The original slide show was almost all science but the newer version will contain more slides on solutions to the problem. The Sierra Club’s slide show is all about solutions and is named “Smart Energy Solutions.” Presenters have to train themselves using the files that they can download to their computers. Since the Sierra Club is relying on volunteer members in hundreds of groups throughout the country to become presenters it is not possible to predict how many members will be giving presentations.

Perhaps the best hope that the US will take the lead in combating global warming is that these grassroots movements will energize enough people to write e-mails and letters and call their representatives in Washington and perhaps even take to the streets to demonstrate. Overcoming the efforts of the powerful oil and coal industries to prevent Americans from turning away from these industries’ products to use renewable energy sources and energy efficiency instead to meet our energy needs and provide leadership for the rest of the world to do the same will not be easy.

Livestock Are Major Contributor to Global Warming

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has issued a report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow” which says that together cows, sheep, goats, and pigs account for more of global warming effects than all of the transportation sources in the world, a hefty 18%. With worldwide meat production expected to double by 2050 and scientists calling for at least a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by that year to prevent catastrophic climate change the livestock situation clearly presents a major challenge. With so much attention with regard to the global warming problem focused on transportation, industry, and electricity generating sources of greenhouse gases the emissions from livestock are sort of getting a free pass. It’s the cows, stupid.

Global Warming a Top Priority for Presidential Hopeful John Edwards

In his entry into the presidential sweepstakes as a candidate for the Democratic party John Edwards named fighting global warming as one of his top priorities. It will be interesting to see if other candidates are as bold, in essence saying that they are willing to take on the powerful oil, coal, and auto industries. It will also be interesting to see if Edwards continues to put global warming at the top of the list should he eventually be the Democratic party’s candidate for president.

For now, Edwards' vow to make fighting global warming part of his campaign agenda seems like one of the few positive events on the global warming scene which has largely consisted of one gloomy piece of news after another throughout the entire year. During the recent congressional election little was heard about global warming although a lot was heard about energy issues, particularly the goal of obtaining energy independence. However, trying to attain energy independence does not involve reducing the use of coal for generating electricity which is the largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The United States needs to drastically reduce its reliance on coal. It also needs to convince China to do the same.

Clearly we need strong leadership on the presidential level to have any hope of combating global warming. Edwards making the global warming issue a top priority does provide some hope as this year draws to a close.

Bill McKibben Says Individualism Increased by Fossil Fuels

Writing in the January/February 2007 issue of Sierra magazine, Bill McKibben looks at our global warming predicament and offers some hopeful suggestions for stabilizing the climate. In his analysis he makes the following observation about how fossil fuels has transformed many of us as human beings:

And it's when you start thinking about those kinds of shifts that you understand what fossil fuel, with all its magic, has really produced. Not just wealth and global warming--but also a redefined human being, one far more individualistic than before. One, in the extreme American version, who lives in a big house (twice as big as in 1950) on the far edge of a distant suburb and drives everywhere (usually alone). One who depends very little on neighbors. In fact, one survey found that three-quarters of Americans don't even know their next-door neighbors, a novel condition for any human being at any time in history. (A novel condition, for that matter, for any primate.)

McKibben contrasts Americans with the more community-minded Europeans and points out that the greater emphasis on community results in the average European using only half of the energy that the average American uses. Unfortuately, believing that the trend toward increased individualism in the United States can be reversed quickly enough to combat global warming seems like a stretch. McKibben points to the increase in farmers’ markets with local produce as an example that the first step is being taken, however, the houses in the United States are still getting bigger and the suburbs are still being pushed further and further out from urban cores. If stopping global warming requires Americans to become more community oriented we may be in even bigger trouble than we think.

Representative John Dingell’s Take on Global Warming Does Not Bode Well for Effective Legislation

When the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month John Dingell from Michigan will for the first time in over a decade take over the powerful position of House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. During his last stint he frustrated environmentalists who wanted to significantly raise fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. But that was before concerns about global warming reached the threshold levels that they have today. Like so many people he may now recognize the urgency of the threat and be willing to go along with raising the fuel efficiency standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After reading an interview with Dingelll on the blog Gristmill I am afraid that thinking he may have softened his position is just so much wishful thinking.
When asked by the interviewer whether a scientific consensus on global warming has been established Dingell replied with this little pearl of wisdom:

This country, this world, the [human] race of which you and I are a part, is great at having consensuses that are in great error. And so I want to get the scientific facts, and find out what the situation is, and find out what is the cure, and find out what is the cure that is acceptable to the country that I represent and serve.

It kind of makes you want to move to Michigan just so you can vote against him in 2008. Then again, if he ever lost his seat in auto manufacturing land, which he has held for decades, would his replacement be any better on this issue?

Harvard Scientist Blasts Inhofe’s Global Warming Hearing

Daniel P. Schrag, who was one of two witnesses invited by the Democratic staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee to counter the view that global warming is a hoax at a recent hearing held by committee chairman Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma to find out if the media is hyping the threat of global warming, did not mince words about what he thought about the proceedings in a Boston Globe op-ed. Schrag, who is professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard, called the hearing ”a gathering of liars and charlatans, sponsored by those industries who want to protect their profits.”

After providing a scientific explanation of global warming in his opening statement he then says that he:

“watched in horror as Inhofe's witnesses spouted outrageous claims intended to deceive and distort. Two were scientists associated with industry-funded think tanks. They described global warming as a "mass delusion" among the scientific community, sowing confusion by misrepresenting the ice core data that connects carbon dioxide and temperature over glacial cycles, and claiming that "global warming stopped in 1998" -- an anomalously warm year. They even recommended burning as much fossil fuel as possible to prevent another ice age.”

Following the hearing Schrag had another surprise. He says that:

I later learned that Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, was a key figure in publicizing the swift boat veterans' attack on John Kerry in 2004. Morano, it seems, is still up to his old tricks, twisting the facts to support his boss's outrageous claims. This made my visit complete: a glimpse at our government that sees the world only through glasses tinted by special interests, which treats science as a political football, no matter what is at stake.

I have to agree with the conclusion that Schrag reached after his experience in Washington. He put it this way:

As our leaders accept the outrageous spectacle I saw the other day as just a normal day in Congress, we will have to take the first step without them.

Hopefully more and more scientists and other citizens will come to this realization and the first step will be taken before it is too late.

Is Global Warming Hopeless as a Main Political Issue?

David Roberts writing in Gristmill blog has made the following observation:

I doubt global warming will ever be a primary political issue. By that I mean, we'll see lots of policies pitched like this: "Policy X will solve Problem Y ... and will also help fight global warming." But "Policy X will fight global warming" will never be enough, on its own.

He reasons that:

While voters claim to be concerned about global warming, it takes almost nothing to knock it back among their priorities. They're concerned, sure, but they don't want higher gas prices, or any new taxes, or any new government bureaucracies, or any lost jobs, or any, you know ... cost.

Perhaps Al Gore, the Sierra Club, etc. will prove him wrong over the next couple of years and a powerful grassroots movement built specifically around the issue of global warming will emerge. Who would have expected grassroots political movements to have peacefully overthrown the Soviet empire? Anything can happen.

2006 Appears to Be Headed for Fifth or Sixth Warmest Year

The global warming skeptics are probably out there lurking in the weeds just waiting to pounce if climate scientists announce that the most recent year will not be among the warmest ever recorded since such recordings began in the late 1800s. It looks like the skeptics are going to be disappointed again because as reported in The New York Times, 2006 is on course to be the fifth warmest year according to NASA scientists and sixth warmest year according to the World Meteorological Association. The skeptics should not get their hopes up for 2007 either as NASA climate scientist James Hansen says that 2007 should be warmer than 2006 because the tropical Pacific Ocean is in the midst of a periodic hot spell and this high temperature condition should last into next spring.

U.S. Senate May Be Next Battleground in Global Warming Political Fight

With Senator Barbara Boxer gearing up for weeks of hearings on global warming after she assumes chairmanship of the Environmental and Public Works Committee next month there is speculation about what might happen. An article from the San Jose Mercury News provides some insightful analysis. Boxer is presently advocating that the United States use California’s greenhouse gas emission capping program as a model. The article lists several formidable obstacles that Boxer will likely encounter: “industry resistance, budget constraints, disagreements among party leaders, and the problem’s daunting complexity and global scope,” and emphasizes that there is still fierce opposition to emission controls from “many energy companies, utilities, and the auto industry.” Also in Boxer’s way may stand two new Democratic chairmen of House committees, Nick Rahall from the coal-producing state of West Virginia who will chair the House Resources Committee and John Dingell from the auto manufacturing state of Michigan who will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee. Whether this upcoming battle in the Senate leads to more than providing entertainment for political junkies remains to be seen. A quote from Henry Lee, an environmental expert from Harvard, who says that “ ideological polarization, large budget deficits, an unwillingness to take risks…leads to the inability to reach decisions,” provides good reasons why expectations about the ultimate results of Boxer’s efforts should not be raised very high.

For Federal Climate Scientists Saying “Kyoto” Was a No-No

Once again charges are flying that that Bush administration has been trying to muzzle climate scientists who work for the federal government. The Associated Press has reported that Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, claims that about 4 years ago scientists at the lab were banned from using the word “Kyoto,” as in Kyoto Protocol to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Another NOAA senior scientist who works at the Boulder laboratory, physicist James Elkins, confirmed the ban and said it was lifted after the Russians finally ratified the Protocol. Hopefully, inspectors general from NASA and the Commerce Department, who according to Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey have launched investigations into reports of censorship of global warming science by the Bush administration, will soon get to the bottom of this charge and similar charges that have been made.

Hydropower Said to Cause More Global Warming Than Coal-Fired Plants

Hydroelectric power’s reputation as a clean source of energy continues to take a pounding. The results of a 3-year study of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in Southeast Asia which was published today in Taiwan found that hydropower is a greater contributor to global warming than power plants run on coal or oil. The researchers explained that the dead organic matter at the bottom of a reservoir behind a dam does not receive enough oxygen to decompose which results in the production of methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by a factor of 21, and nitrous oxide, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by a factor of 200. A member of the research team predicted that the Three Gorges Dam built on the Yangtze River in China, which is now in operation, will be a serious contributor to global warming. (Photo of Three Gorges reservoir behind the dam credited to Three Gorges Probe.)

Senator Inhofe Uses Last Days of Leadership to Spread Doubts About Threat of Global Warming

You would not expect someone who stood on the U.S. Senate floor and called global warming a great environmental hoax to end his reign as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with a serious hearing on the issue and the senator from Oklahoma did not disappoint. As reported by the San Jose Mercury News, he continued to waste taxpayer money with a hearing on December 6th that set out to answer the following question: “Is a sensation-seeking media hyping the threat of global warming?” (If the Republican leadership understood when to be skeptical they would have held hearings in 2002 to answer questions such as “Is the media hyping the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" We know the answer now but it came much too late.) Fortunately, for that segment of the U.S. public that wants to deal with reality there is relief on the way. On January 4, 2007 the Democrats take over leadership of the House and Senator Barbara Boxer from California will become the new committee chairman. She is promising to hold in-depth hearings on global warming and how to combat it. That will certainly be a welcome change.

Danish Offshore Wind Farms Breeze Through Environmental Monitoring Tests

Proponents of offshore wind farms have something to cheer about. Eight years of monitoring the environmental effects of two large offshore wind farms off the coast of Denmark turned up nothing really bad. Cape Cod Today reported the main findings of the study which are of particular interest to local residents since there is great controversy over a proposal to locate a wind farm off the Cape Cod coast. Among the findings were that it was a rare event for a waterbird to crash into a turbine, the wind farms had no noticeable effects on seals, and that fish often swim around the artificial structures. It is hard to imagine how a major effort worldwide to combat global warming could be undertaken without offshore wind farms playing a big part. The Danish study shows that with careful siting, offshore wind farms are a feasible way to provide a renewable energy source for generating large amounts of electricity without great adverse environmental consequences.

Scientists Disagree Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Tropical Hydro

The Observer reports that at a meeting this week in Paris scientists will present evidence that when hydroelectric power plants are built in the tropics, the dead organic matter that accumulates in the reservoir behind the dam eventually decays releasing very large amounts of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. As I mentioned in a post last month, I first heard about this extraordinary claim while listening to the radio show EcoTalk. It is tough enough to limit global warming without finding out that what is probably the most important clean method of generating electricity isn’t really clean. According to the Observer, not all scientists in this field agree that the emission of vast amounts of greenhouse gases occurs from hydro plants in tropical regions as some say that after a few years only modest amounts of emissions occur. Certainly global warming policy makers will need to know very soon who is right.

Rooftop Wind Turbines Create a Stir in Britain

Those who say that wind power should play a prominent role in replacing fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions probably do not have in mind the type of small wind turbines that have recently been appearing on rooftops in British cities. An article in The Christian Science Monitor focuses on the first such device to be installed on a roof in the city of Brighton. The owner paid $3,900 to have his miniature windmill. While the reporter was present the device was generating 0.8 kilowatts, enough to run only a small electrical appliance. No wonder questions have been raised in Britain about whether these rooftop wind turbines can ever save enough money to pay for the original installation. Nevertheless, among urban dwellers in Britain who are very environmentally conscious these devices have become very popular. Whether this miniature windmill craze is simply folly, the latest symbol of environmentalism, or actually an important step in combating global warming has become a subject of debate among the British. From this side of the Atlantic it appears to me that the rooftop wind tubines are a positive development.

Have Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs Really Dropped Enough in Price?

An article in The New York Times says that the McKinsey Global Institute will release a study today that says that the rate of growth of energy consumption worldwide can be more than halved during the next 15 years through energy efficiency measures using currently available technology (e.g., compact fluorescent light bulbs). According to the study, both consumers and industry could save money by taking advantage of potential energy savings. Instead of the current projected annual growth rate of 2.2%, greater energy efficiency efforts would lead to a projected growth rate of 0.6%.

In discussing why consumers have been slow to replace conventional incandescent light bulbs with far more energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs the article says that “Years ago, these efficient light bulbs cost up to 10 times as much as conventional incandescent bulbs, and their light had a somewhat different hue. But today, the light spectrum has been corrected and compact fluorescents are only slightly more costly than conventional bulbs, yet they last 10 times as long and consume 75 percent less electricity. The overall financial advantage of using compact fluorescent bulbs is obvious and sizable, even if the initial purchase price is higher.” Only slightly more costly? At a visit at a Wal-Mart this year I found that a conventional light bulb sold in a 4-pack costs about 26 cents whereas an equivalent compact fluorescent bulb costs at least $3. Therefore, according to my calculations a fluorescent bulb costs about 12 times as much as a conventional bulb. If the gap in pricing has closed as the article contends I have so far been unable to locate any stores where this has taken place.

Increasing Rate of Carbon Emissions Confirmed

The BBC reports that the results of a report released a couple of weeks ago by the World Meteorological Organization showing that there has been a marked increase in global carbon emissions over the last 5 years has been confirmed by data just released by the Global Carbon Project. This latest news on carbon emissions thereby pretty much dashes any hopes that somehow the World Meteorological Organization had got it wrong. The latest data show that the annual rate of increase is 2.5% which is close to the 3.2% rate previously reported. The Global Carbon Project suspects that the increase in carbon emissions is largely due to charcoal burning in areas of Asia and Africa. To put this rate in context, during the 1990s the rate of increase was less than 1%. Clearly things are going in the wrong direction. Where this planet is headed is getting kind of scary.

U.S Edging Toward Coal-Fired Plant Building Binge

An article in US News & World Report says that "According to the Department of Energy, 154 coal plants are being proposed nationwide, enough to power 93 million homes." The utilities proposing these plants claim that they are just trying to meet the increasing demands for electricity while critics of the proposed plants contend that the utilities are trying to build as many of these plants as they can before greenhouse gas emissions regulations arrive on the scene. In any event, it will certainly be hard to convince the Chinese to slow down their rapid building of coal plants with this surge of coal plant proposals in our own backyard. All in all, with this large number of proposals for building new coal plants right here in the United States in the face of potential oncoming catastrophic climate change it is clear that the absence of wise leadership on the global warming issue in the White House is leaving all humanity in a position of extreme vulnerability.

In Bio Town U.S.A. Global Warming Takes Back Seat to Energy Independence

Nightline on ABC last night ran an interesting segment on the small Indiana farming town of Reynolds that is trying to become completely energy independent. Their plan is centered on using pig waste to power everything from cars to TVs. It was pointed out that no one in the town mentioned combating global warming as a motiviation. Rather, a main motivation was becoming energy independent as a way of combating the threat of terrorism. It was easy to see that in this rural midwestern American community, which calls its plan Bio Town, U.S.A., that patriotism is an extremely strong motivating force. The inability to link actions to limit global warming to patriotism makes it more difficult politically for the U.S. to take action to reduce greenhouse gases. Success in limiting global warming would be beneficial for the U.S. but it would also help those countries that the Bush administration perceives to be enemies as well as those countries perceived to be our main economic competitors. For U.S. politicians who want to quickly address the global warming problem there appear to be some daunting challenges ahead.

Why Have Methane Levels Become Stable?

Back in September there was a report that atmospheric methane levels have stabilized since 1999 because so much swampy land was lost to either development or drought and not because of emission reductions from human sources based on measurements of methane emissions from various sources. However, the BBC now reports that scientists who have published a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters speculate that measures taken by humans to reduce methane emissions such as reducing methane released from gas pipelines, paddy fields, and landfill sites might be the explanation. It would be nice if our efforts to reduce methane emissions are really working but I am more inclined to believe the findings of the first report that blames the loss of swampy land.

Rooftop Solar Panels Nixed by Local Board

In the very upscale suburban village of Scarsdale, New York, the application of a couple who wanted to take advantage of alternative energy and install solar panels on the roof of their “cozy” new 8,000 square foot house was turned down by the Architectural Review Board. The reason for the rejection as reported by The Journal News was that “More than a dozen neighbors sent a petition to the board saying the solar panels were not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and might cause glare. The Architectural Review Board agreed that the panels in question would "negatively impact the aesthetics of the community." I agree with the editorial comments in the paper about this issue which said that “The board should make it easier, not harder, for homeowners and homebuilders who are trying to be energy-responsible.” On the other hand, given the predicament we are in as the climate crisis builds an obvious question to raise is the following: How energy responsible is it to build an 8,000 square foot house in the first place?

Geoengineering Starting to Gain Respectability

One sure sign that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale are failing is the recent increased interest in academic and government circles in climate manipulation through geoengineering. The Boston Globe has reported that this past weekend a wide range of intellectuals met to discuss how to go about researching strategies for geoengineering schemes to cool the Earth if necessary because of global warming. The two-day meeting was organized by NASA and Stanford University. One of the climate scientists at the meeting, Ken Caldeira from Stanford, said climate modeling shows that his idea of blocking 20 percent of the sunlight over the Arctic Ocean could restore sea ice. Although Caldeira’s idea and other ideas that have been advanced to cool the Earth by blocking sunlight may seem way too far out to be worth pursuing such ideas continue to gain ground as confidence in being able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally wanes. This loss of confidence is certainly easy to understand. It has been 18 years since NASA climate scientist James Hansen gained media attention by describing the dangers of global warming and 15 years since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientifically documented the risk of not taking action and still no real progress has been made. In fact, it has been estimated that the annual rate of increase in global carbon emissions is several times higher than it was during the 1990s and the two biggest greenhouse gas polluters, the United States and China, are so far refusing to cap carbon emissions. We have to hope that that there will never be reason to attempt a geoengineering fix to the global warming problem but from all appeances the odds of it happening are slowly beginning to grow.

Climate Change Conference in Nairobi Failing to Clarify the Future

A report by Reuters on the happenings at the Climate Change conference in Nairobi, Kenya confirms what might have been expected, the rich and poor countries disagree on how to proceed and a number of countries are simply waiting until the U.S. has a new president in 2009. Whether the global warming problem is ever properly addressed at all seems to be boiling down to one question: will the United States provide strong leadership in 2009 or not? Obviously, the answer at this point is far from clear. From today’s perspective it seems uncertain whether global warming will be a major election issue in 2008. It is unclear what it would take to give global warming more visibility on the U.S. political map. Except in California, it was basically invisible as an issue during the recent election campaigns. For whatever reason, in the U.S. global warming has not achieved the status it deserves as a political issue. Time is unfortunately growing short to change that.

Bush Taken to Court for Failure to Issue Climate Report

Where is the latest national climate assessment from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program? The Associated Press has reported that three environmental groups, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace, got tired of waiting for President Bush to produce the document and sued on the grounds that the report should have been issued in November 2004 according to the requirements of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 which calls for a national assessment every four years and the last one was issued in 2000. Let’s hope the courts move quickly on this because as climate scientists such as James Hansen from NASA have been explaining time is quickly running out to take action that can prevent catastrophic climate change. It seems obvious from all the recent climate science data that if the report were issued and the scientific judgments in it were untainted by the censorship of Bush political appointees that it would indicate that much stronger measures than Bush’s global warming policy which relies on purely voluntary measures are needed to avoid placing the long-term prospects of civilized human life on the planet Earth in jeopardy.

First Carbon Tax in U.S. Approved

This should make former Vice President Al Gore happy, there is now a carbon tax in a U.S. municipality. Gore has been advocating such a tax and lo and behold a report from Reuters says that the voters in Boulder, Colorado, the home of the University of Colorado and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, have approved such a tax which is based on how much electricity is used. Most of the electricity in Boulder comes from coal-fired plants. The tax is waived for residents who choose to get their electricity from wind power. The revenue generated by the tax will be used for home and business energy audits and for giving homeowners expert advice on how to improve energy efficiency. If people take advantage of the advice they receive they should save money in the long run and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to Boulder Mayor Mark Ruzzin as quoted in USA Today, “The City Council authorized the ballot measure to fund a city plan to reduce greenhouse emissions 7% below 1990 levels. To accomplish that, Boulder would have to cut emissions 24% by 2012. About half of the city's emissions are attributed to burning fossil fuels for electricity.” Perhaps the passage of the measure can be to some extent explained by the Mayor’s observation that “We have probably more climate scientists living in Boulder than any other city in the world.”

U.S. Mayors Gather in Sundance, Utah for Meeting on Climate Protection

More than 30 U.S. mayors and a number of leading U.S. climate experts are attending a 3-day meeting on climate protection at the Sundance Preserve founded by actor and environmentalist Robert Redford. A major purpose of the meeting is to provide the mayors with the tools for effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their communities. One particularly interesting item on the agenda is a 30-minute presentation by former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado which is scheduled for tomorrow. The title of the presentation is 100 Days of Climate Action: A Leadership Plan for the Next US President. I would like to be there myself to hear what former Senator Hart has to say.

Here is a list of most of the mayors who are attending:

Martin J. Chavez, Albuquerque, NM

Mark Begich, Anchorage, AK

Ellen O. Moyer, Annapolis, MD

Helen Klanderud, Aspen, CO

Will Wynn, Austin, TX

Elizabeth Kautz, Burnsville, MN

Sam Sallee, Cookeville, TN

T.M. Frank Cownie, Des Moines, IA

Roy D. Buol, Dubuque, IA

Dennis Walaker, Fargo, ND

Dan Coody, Fayetteville, AR

Graham Richard, Fort Wayne, IN

Pegeen Hanrahan, Gainesville, FL

Darryl Clare, Galt, CA

George Heartwell, Grand Rapids, MI

Carolyn Peterson, Ithaca, NY

RT Rybak, Minneapolis, MN

Kevin Burns, North Miami, FL

Roger Chase, Pocatello, ID

Rosemarie Ives, Redmond, WA

Heather Fargo, Sacramento, CA

Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City, UT

Gavin Newsom, San Francisco, CA

Joseph T. McElveen, Sumter, SC

Bill Baarsma, Tacoma, WA

Glen D. Gilmore, Township of Hamilton, NJ

Scott Avedisian, Warwick, RI

Christopher Cabaldon, West Sacramento, CA

Carbon Emissions Rate on the Rise

Carbon is being spewed out at a far greater increasing rate than just a few years ago. A news report in Nature says that “Global carbon emissions are now growing by 3.2% a year, according to results presented at an Earth science conference in Beijing on 9 November. That's four times higher than the average annual growth of 0.8% from 1990-99.” Of particular note is that China, which accounts for 16% of emissions, accounts for 40% of the increased rate. The news report says that “China plans to reduce the amount of its 'energy intensity', defined as the emissions per person per unit of GDP, by 20% by 2010, although it has no official emissions targets.”

Report Urges Much Faster Action on Climate Change

A new report from the Institute of Public Policy Research of the UK says that steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are moving much too slow. The report says that to prevent global temperature from rising more than 2°C, which is considered to be the highest increase possible without extremely serious changes in climate occurring, carbon dioxide emissions would have to peak during the period of 2010 and 2013 and start declining by 4% to 5% by 2015 to 2020 so that by 2050 emissions would be 70% to 80% below 1990 levels.

Simon Retallack, the leader of the IPPR climate change group stated:

Above all, our research shows we urgently need to rethink our timetable for action. We do not have decades: we have less than ten years to stop the growth in global CO2.

Senator Barbara Boxer Announces Plans for Global Warming Policy

With the Democrats surprisingly winning not only the House of Representatives but the Senate as well in this week’s mid-term election the chairmanship of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee will shift from Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who may be best known for standing on the Senate floor a few years ago and announcing that global warming was a great hoax, to Democrat Barbara Boxer of California, one the most pro-environmental members of the Senate. Confirmation that this change in chairmanship will mean a sweeping change in Committee policy on global warming came in a conference call with reporters yesterday. According to a report by the Associated Press, Boxer said that with regard to global warming, “Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this, the states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps was well.” Clearly this is quite a shift from Inhofe who spent his time on the issue blocking legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Boxer said that for formulating policy she would use the recent California law for capping greenhouse gas emissions as a model.

Since Boxer will be Chairwoman of the Senate environment committee and not the President of the United States it still seems unlikely that there will be any major shift in U.S. policy on global warming until 2009 at the earliest when George W. Bush will finally, at long last, leave office. Hopefully, in 2009 there will still be time to act in order to avoid reaching what NASA climate scientist James Hansen calls the "tipping point."

Tropical Hydro May Be Large Greenhouse Gas Generator

Yesterday on EcoTalk, the national radio show hosted by Betsy Rosenberg, one of the guests, Patrick McCully, Executive Director of International Rivers Network, said that scientific studies have shown that building hydropower dams in tropical areas results in huge emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, but also carbon dioxide. This of course is in direct contrast to the way we usually think about hydro which is as a clean energy source that is an alternative to burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. In the United States at least, most of criticism of hydro has revolved around environmental issues such as the loss of wild rivers and the filling up of spectacular canyons with water. According to McCully, the building of hydropower dams in the tropics creates a much different problem than building such dams here in a temperate climate. He said that in the tropics, various factors in the reservoirs created behind the dams such as high water temperatures and low oxygen levels at the bottom of the reservoirs result in large amounts of greenhouse gases being created and eventually released from bubbles when the water flows through the spillways. Also, in the tropics when the impounded water behind the dam floods the surrounding areas the thick vegetation dies and greenhouse gases are generated in the decomposition process. This appears to be an issue that deserves more attention as efforts are undertaken to find sources of energy that do not contribute to global warming.

Kyoto Protocol Projects Are Claimed to Threaten Indigenous People

Reuters reports that at a news conference at the UN talks on global warming in Nairobi, Kenya speakers for indigenous people from around the world described how clean energy projects backed by the UN to allow industrialized countries to meet their Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the carbon market are threatening their way of life. The speakers claimed that the efforts to combat climate change through these projects, which the UN formally calls the Clean Development Mechanism, are equally as damaging to the indigenous people as the effects of climate change itself. Examples given of planned projects that will damage the natural environment included hydropower dams and plantations of fast growing trees. The European Commission’s chief climate official, Artur Runge-Metzger, is quoted as saying that “The negative effects are not intended by the Clean Development Mechanism” and that all views to improve the Clean Development Mechanism are welcome.

Vision of a Low-Carbon Future

One of the big questions about fighting global warming is whether solutions will involve drastic changes in Western lifestyles. In an essay in the Guardian Madeleine Bunting imagines a low-carbon future where free-wheeling Western lifestyles are a thing of the past.

CO2: Trees Taketh and Trees Giveth Away

Canada has vast forests and Canadian political leaders are counting on the trees of these forests to take up enough carbon dioxide to offset the carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of coal, oil, and gas in Canada when it comes to meeting their Kyoto Protocol targets. However, an article in the Ottawa Citizen points out that scientists have found that trees do not appear to take up carbon dioxide over time. Rather, their measurements in a black spruce forest in Canada show that at certain times trees do take in carbon dioxide but at other times tree give off carbon dioxide with the net effect being about zero change in carbon dioxide. The issue gets more complicated when it comes to planting new forests which can store carbon dioxide and the burning of forests which releases carbon dioxide and whether it is the short-term effects or the long-term effects on carbon dioxide levels that are being considered. It seems unlikely that there will be any consensus soon about the role of trees in combating global warming making the whole issue of offsetting carbon emissions with trees that much more confusing.

Sun Shade Proposed for Global Warming Emergency

What happens if we don’t bring global warming under control and it becomes evident that catastrophic climate change is perhaps only a decade or so away? University of Arizona professor Roger Angel, an optics expert, thinks he may have the answer. His solution is described at physorg.com. Angel proposes that we launch trillions of small transparent free-flying discs, each about 2 feet in diameter and only 1/5000 of an inch thick, to form a 60,000 mile long cylindrical cloud several thousand miles in diameter situated lengthwise between the Earth and sun in the L-1 orbit which is an obit aligned with the sun. To get these objects up there Angel proposes using 20 electromagnetic launchers to launch the objects in stacks of one million at a time. Stacks would be launched every 5 minutes for 10 years. Once in orbit the discs should divert enough sunlight to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by about 2 percent which would produce enough cooling to counter the heating effects of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This proposal will be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It appears that the threat of global warming has now reached the point where serious people are taking proposals like Angel’s seriously.

Tropical Peat Bogs Overlooked as a Major Source of Greenhouse Gases

Has burning fossil fuels been getting a bad rap for being the most important human source of greenhouse gas emissions? Certainly we have been led to believe that burning these fuels is the main culprit but in a report from Reuters Marcel Silvius from the nonprofit organization Wetlands International says that a Dutch research institute has found that the greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands in Southeast Asia are much greater than emissions from burning fossil fuels in the major polluting countries. The release of carbon dioxide from peat bogs occurs when these peatlands are either cleared or burnt. According to the article, if these peat bogs are taken into account, the country of Indonesia would jump up from 21st place to 3rd place right behind the U.S. and China as the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluters and Malaysia would not be far behind.

Urgent Appeal from EcoTalk Radio Show

This message arrived in my e-mail yesterday:

Dear Friends of the Planet,

Did you know you now have your own national radio show -- devoted exclusively to environmental challenges and sustainable solutions? EcoTalk with Betsy Rosenberg has expanded to a daily format and is heard across the nation five days a week on AM radio (Air America Radio Network) and XM Satellite Radio, streamed on the Internet, and podcast through iTunes. Nowhere else will you hear the voices behind green news, the eco-visionaries who deserve to be in the headlines but are overlooked by mainstream media, as well as the inside story about policy and politicians - and the decisions that have a direct impact on our health, the world’s resources, and what we may or may not be leaving to future generations.

We are writing to you because we urgently need your help on three fronts:

First, its ratings season! Now is the time for you and your friends to tune in to your environment through EcoTalk. These conversations are relevant to everyone who eats, drinks or breathes! To find a local station, go to www.ecotalk.net <http://www.ecotalk.net/> or listen on iTunes -- and then forward this letter to help spread the word about EcoTalk’s powerful, "tree-free" interview program. If your local radio station doesn’t carry EcoTalk yet, you can call the program director and ask them to air EcoTalk. Ratings matter - because that’s what attracts sponsors, and those sponsors will allow us to remain on the air so we can continue to green the red and blue states one show at a time.

Second, and a special request to our Bay Area friends -- EcoTalk’s flagship station, KQKE, 960 AM San Francisco is currently reshuffling its lineup in light of Air America’s financial reorganization. Please let Bob Agnew, KQKE’s program director, hear from you ASAP at bobagnew@clearchannel.com and ask him to keep EcoTalk on the air each evening!

Finally, EcoTalk needs sponsors and funding to remain on the air! We have an incredible, targeted national audience and want to continue spreading the word. EcoTalk derives all of its revenues from sponsors, partners and foundation support. If you know of any businesses or environmental organizations interested in advertising or partnering with EcoTalk, please send us an email, at betsy@ecotalk.net. Every $5,000 we receive will keep EcoTalk on the air across the country for another week – it’s that simple. We are also immediately seeking individual investors or donations as we restructure, expand and grow the business – as well as foundation support for our Environmental Journalism Program.

Can we count on your support? Please send any testimonials, sponsor leads, or investment inquiries to betsy@ecotalk.net and any monetary contributions to EcoTalk, P.O. Box 29025, San Francisco, CA 94129. Questions? Call our office (415) 561-2165.

With tremendous gratitude, warm regards, and more than a little urgency,

~ The EcoTalk Team

Investigations Launched on Global Warming Censorship by Bush Administration

The Associated Press reports that inspectors general from the Commerce Department and NASA have begun investigating whether government scientists who study global warming have had their voices muzzled and research censored by the Bush administration. Word about the investigations came from Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. There have been a number of reports about censorship of scientific findings by the Bush administration but these investigations may uncover material that documents what has really has gone on in an effort to suppress scientific information for political purposes.

Stern Report Fails to Faze White House

The report released this week by Nicholas Stern describing likely devastating economic effects that will occur because of global warming if the business as usual approach continues turned out not to be a wake up call for the Bush administration which according to an article in the Telegraph brushed it off as merely another “contribution” to the growing stack of studies on global warming. The reaction, or lack there of, from the White House was pretty much expected as was the lack of alarm from the energy industry and the conservative think tanks. All this absence of concern provides more evidence that nothing much will happen at the federal level about fighting global warming during the time remaining in Bush’s second term as President.

The Telegraph article also gives the perspectives of two more large greenhouse gas polluters, China and India. Neither viewpoints are encouraging.