Is a 3,000 Square Foot House a McMansion?

Michigan Democrat John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and well known thorn in the side of environmentalists for blocking legislation to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars, is drafting a bill which would eliminate the tax deduction on mortgage interest for a house larger than 3,000 square feet. Dingell is quoted in the Washington Post as saying:

remove the mortgage interest deduction on McMansions -- homes over 3,000 square feet.

There probably would be a lot of support for removing this tax deduction for McMansions but does a 3,000 square foot really classify as a McMansion? While there is no agreed on definition, a house of 3,000 square feet seems a bit small to make the grade. In a post on this blog that I wrote earlier this month it was noted that nationally known land use law expert John Nolon from Pace University Law School uses the definition of 6,000 to 8,000 feet. He was quoted in the Guardian as saying that:

A 6,000 sq ft-8,000 sq ft house is a climate change disaster. If the country doesn't rein in the construction of these mansions the message to individuals is that they're encouraged to follow their urges. The phenomenon with McMansions is similar to that with SUVs: they express a certain sort of success, they're available and they're fun.

Nolon clearly is talking about very large houses when he uses the term McMansions. Dingell however is including houses that are only slightly larger than the average size new house. Why is he even using the term McMansion?

Perhaps Dingell is trying to appear green while proposing legislation which has no chance of passing. If he used Nolon’s definition and made the cutoff at 6,000 square feet that might be hard for the real estate and developer lobbies to defeat. The Washington Post article says that realtors and home builders are already up in arms about Dingell’s proposal. They probably won’t be the only ones.

Dingell is the chairman of an extremely important committee when it comes to the issue of global warming. We can only hope that he sincerely is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and not just trying make it look like that is his goal.

Nothing Funny About Belching Livestock

It is not surprising that many people find it hard to take seriously the claims that methane expelled by cows can be a threat to the planet. It seems more like gross-out humor than serious climate science. Particularly since many people believe that the methane comes out at the end of the digestive tract as in humans. Actually most of this methane is expelled by belching.

According to a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor cows burp about once every 40 seconds. Their digestive processes yield as much as 100 gallons a day of methane and much of it is released through belching. Multiply that by all the cows in the world and you can be begin to see why this has no relationship to toilet humor. Considering that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide with regard to heat trapping (although it does not last nearly as long in the atmosphere) it is clear that this is very serious business.

To make this subject even more grim cows are not the only type of livestock that burp methane. For example, sheep are also part of this problem. A reporter from a Western Australian radio station discovered that in her part of the world this is particularly true because of the high salinity which results in the sheep eating bush that generates lots of burping.

Kay Balatero recently discussed the issue of belching cows on Gristmill blog and noted that scientists are looking for ways to change the diet of livestock to cut down on the belching. She finds herself doubting the wisdom of this effort:

But I'm somewhat skeptical about this dietary tampering; the idea of manipulating cow diets even further than we already have is a little disconcerting. We've seen corn-fed CAFO [confined animal feeding operations] cows become more susceptible to disease as a direct result of eliminating their natural diet of grass, leading to overuse of antibiotics by the beef industry. Would it be better to leave well enough alone, and simply consume less (sustainably raised) beef?

In theory, the problem could be solved by humans becoming vegans in vast numbers. Who needs billions of livestock if we no longer eat beef or lamb or consume dairy products such as milk, cheese, ice cream, and yogurt. The chance of this happening seems to be zero. If civilization is going down, it hardly seems likely that people would give up such perceived pleasures as eating a choice cut of grilled steak or a juicy hamburger from the barbecue during the descent.

Does DiCaprio’s Lifestyle Matter?

Most humans don’t fly. Among those who do most do not fly in their own private jets. But Leonardo DiCaprio does fly in his own private jet and since he is a celebrity calling for action against global warming this really bothers some people. It really bothers Glenn Barry who runs the climate change and global warming portal Climate Ark. It bothers Barry so much that he has issued an action alert to :

Let Leo know that the battle to stop the growth in aviation's greenhouse gas emission is one the most important environmental battles ever that requires his personal example. To be a credible messenger of global ecological sustainability Leonardo must both walk the walk and talk the talk. Let him know you will see his movie if he swears off private jets.

On other extreme, David Roberts blogging on Huffington Post has a simple reaction to all this agitation over how DiCaprio travels. Roberts says “eh.” Roberts explains his “who cares” attitude by saying:

I care about global warming. I don't think celebrity behavior is going to affect the issue one way or the other…

Whether or not celebrities matter in the fight against global warming it is a sure bet that we are going to keep hearing from celebrities on this issue. Celebrities are so much part of the media that is it almost impossible to imagine the media without them. Probably the mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, who originated the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement which has now been signed by over 600 mayors and town supervisors has done more to combat global warming than all of the celebrities combined if you leave out Al Gore but outside of the Seattle area you are unlikely to see him show up in the media. The value of the media to the fight against global warming is largely to show pictures of the effects of climate change such as melting glaciers, stranded polar bears, etc. When it comes to taking action against global warming the media will focus on celebrities which is not where the action is.

What’s the Deal with Dingell?

A debate among environmentalists is raging over whether the proposals by Michigan Democrat John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, represent a sincere effort to fight global warming or a sneaky way to prevent meaningful legislation on raising CAFE standards for cars. On Gristmill blog, David Roberts is defending Dingell while Joseph Romm accuses Dingell of using the “poison pill” strategy to undermine legislative efforts to raise CAFE standards.

Trying to decipher Dingell’s motives becomes even more complicated when you realize that only last December when asked 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 here is someone who only recently was wondering whether humans are to blame for global warming and now has proposed the following strong measures as listed by David Roberts:

A carbon tax of up to $100 per ton.

A gas tax of $0.50 a gallon.

A cap-and-trade system.

Ending the mortgage tax deduction for "McMansions" over 3,000 sq. feet.

All with the goal of reducing GHG emissions 60-80% by 2050.

Clearly there would be great political opposition in the United States to at least three of these proposals, the carbon tax, gas tax, and end of the mortgage deduction for many people. And coming from someone who only about eight months ago appeared to have been in the global warming skeptics camp has to raise doubts over the sincerity of these proposals. However, after holding hearings on global warming and energy maybe Dingell has had an epiphany and has decided that he is the one to put forth truly strong legislation, sort of like Richard Nixon, who made his reputation by being an anticommunist deciding that he would be the one to open the door to communist China.

Even if Dingell’s motives can not be unequivocally determined, his proposals seem to provide hope that the debate in the US Congress has at last shifted from whether human sources are the cause of global warming to what to do about it.

Folly of Building McMansions

Although people buying SUVs have taken most of the heat for making foolish purchases while the global warming crisis has taken on alarming proportions the folly of those buying McMansions is now starting to gain attention. An article in the Guardian quotes John Nolon, a leading land use law expert from Pace University Law School, as saying:

A 6,000 sq ft-8,000 sq ft house is a climate change disaster. If the country doesn't rein in the construction of these mansions the message to individuals is that they're encouraged to follow their urges. The phenomenon with McMansions is similar to that with SUVs: they express a certain sort of success, they're available and they're fun. If legislative folks don't take some kind of position on mansionisation, it will go unchecked.

Compared with modest size houses of perhaps 2,000 square feet McMansions of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet take more energy to heat in the winter and cool in the summer. Also, there is a lot more space to light and more room for all those energy using appliances such as TVs and computers. With about half of electricity being generated with coal burning in the United States it is not hard to see why McMansion building is another driver of global warming.

The article points out that there are places that are starting to take action to halt this madness. For example, Boulder, Colorado, the first city in the US with a carbon tax, has imposed a cap on the size of new house after the average size new house grew to over 6,000 square feet.

The excesses in American society seem endless. Limiting house size might be a good place to start attacking the bigger is better problem. Bigger isn't better because our planet isn't getting any larger.

Will Greener Planes Bring Meaner Conditions Around Airports?

Generally reducing greenhouse gas emissions is associated with providing other environmental benefits but in a Washington Post article the director of research and technology at Rolls-Royce, Richard J. Parker, says that focusing on reducing carbon dioxide emissions by engineers might result in new engines that are noisier or produce more of the environmentally troublesome nitrogen oxides than present engines. In the words of Parker:

"Will people living near airports win out, or will the planet as a whole win out?"

Not a great choice. Of course, there is always the option of flying less but this also has negative consequences, particularly for people in less developed areas who depend on hoards of tourists booking their hotels to survive economically. It seems that choices have to be made and everyone can’t win.

Al Gore: a Help or Hindrance?

It is almost taken for granted that Al Gore has made an immeasurable contribution to the cause of fighting global warming, nearly single-handedly it sometimes seems moving the issue from the green edges of society into the mainstream. Yet, on Earth Meanders blog Glen Barry strongly criticizes Gore’s strategy when he says:

I am concerned with the direction Al Gore, as the self-appointed climate movement leader, is taking -- emphasizing celebrity and inadequate small personal responses, to the detriment of grassroots inspired major cultural change necessary to save the Earth.

Perhaps a bigger problem of Gore leading the charge is that he is a polarizing figure. Millions of conservatives don’t like him, Bill, or Hillary. Although he says this should not be a partisan issue it is hard to see how it can not be if he is the one out in front. There must be many people who won’t listen to his recommendations simply because he is Al Gore.

Despite all the problems with the second half of the Clinton-Gore ticket being seen at the leader in the fight to stop global warming and all the celebrities he has enlisted in the cause it still must be acknowledged that he is capable of reaching people in the mainstream with his message that grassroots environmentalists have no way of reaching. These are probably people who tend to closely follow the world of celebrities in television, film, music, sports, etc but do not pay much attention to “serious” political issues. Gore has somehow bridged the gap. But I guess it is Barry’s point that in doing so there is a trade off in that the suggested changes can not be too radical, even it that is what it takes to deal with the problem which Barry and many others have concluded.

Southern Utilities Cling to Coal Burning

We know historically that the South has been extremely slow to change and in fact has been so slow that it has been forced to change when it came to slavery and segregation. It appears that this pattern of resisting change is continuing when it comes to switching from coal burning to renewable energy sources. According to an article from the Associated Press, whereas nearly half of the states now have adopted mandates requiring electric utilities to produce a specific percentage of electricity from renewables, Texas is the only state in the South with such a mandate. Moreover, half of the votes in the Senate to defeat federal legislation to require 15% of electricity to come from renewables were cast by senators from southern states.

A good appreciation of the coal-burning situation in the South can be gained by watching the film Kilowatt Ours. The film shows how burning coal in the South has resulted in the Great Smokey Mountain National Park often being filled with haze instead of usually offering crystal clear views of distant mountains as in the past and how the need for coal in the South, which uses more coal than the national average for generating electricity, leads to the disgraceful practice of mountaintop mining in West Virginia.

The AP article says that the US Environmental Protection Agency ranks three southern utilities—Southern Co., Duke Energy, and the Tennessee Valley Authority—among the top four greenhouse gas emitting utilities in the US. The number one emitter, Southern Co., doesn’t even appear to admit that emissions of carbon dioxide are related to global warming based on statements such as the following by senior executive Chris Hobson who was quoted in the article as saying:

"If we are irrational about it and we cripple our economy or cripple our industry and we realize carbon dioxide wasn't the source of the problem, then we'll be real regretful."

Maybe someone at Southern Co. should read the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If they did they would learn that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted from human sources are the source of the problem. Scientists will never say they are 100% sure of a conclusion but this statement was about as close as they will ever get. The Old South may be mostly gone but the New South needs to transform into the Green South.

More Energy Efficient Light Bulbs but not TVs

The gains in energy efficiency being made by replacing the familiar incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents that use much less electricity are probably being wiped out and then some by replacement of cathode ray TVs with large screen plasma or LCD TVs which use far more electricity. Add in all the new gizmos with rechargeable batteries and it is hard to see how we can carry out Al Gore’s pledge item 3 “To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2” without leaving ourselves in the dark. Since it is very expensive to trap CO2 and the technology for storing it safely is not yet proven and may never be the pledge may really mean no new coal plants period. All the more reason to stress energy efficiency.

The British seem to be more worried about this problem than we are here in the US. A recent article in the Guardian on report by the Energy Saving Trust (EST) said the following:

The proliferation of home entertainment equipment such as flat screen TVs, digital radios and laptops in homes means that by 2020 this type of technology will account for 45% of domestic electricity use.

The running cost of today's plasma and LCD screen TVs can be as much as three times that of traditional cathode ray tube sets. The largest domestic plasma TV on the market - with a massive 103 in screen - has a power rating of 1.5kw, which means watching it uses as much energy as leaving 25 light bulbs on.

This means 14 power stations will be required just to power equipment used for communication and entertainment, the EST said in its report the Ampere Strikes Back.

Al Gore has done a great job in educating the public about the threat of global warming but he has yet to make the same impact with regard to educating us about energy efficiency. Should he tell us to stop buying all these large screen TVs? So far I don’t think he has. Where is the US version of the Ampere Strikes Back? All we seem to have in America is millions of people buying giant TVs to watch the Empire Strikes Back, etc. At the rate we are going what we are going to have is the climate striking back.

The Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per Capita Problem

If there is any issue that appears to be an insurmountable obstacle to reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally it appears to be the issue surrounding per capita emissions of carbon dioxide. Spokesmen for China, which has recently been crowned as the number one greenhouse gas polluter in the world, displacing the long-time reigning champion the United States of America, are quick to point out that on a per capita basis their emissions are far below those of the US, which is correct since each of us in America on average is responsible for more than four times the amount of emissions than those who live in China.

If global emissions of carbon dioxide are now about 30 billion tons a year, then on average the 6.5 billion inhabitants of our planet are responsible for about 4.5 tons each. With the average American responsible for emitting about 20 tons annually we are way above the average. The climate scientists say that to have a decent chance of avoiding the most serious consequences of global warming we have to reduce our emissions globally by about 80% by 2050. So the 30 billion tons a year would have to fall to roughly 6 billion tons a year. It is predicted that there will be 9 billion people on Earth by 2050 so on average they would have to be responsible for emitting only about 0.7 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Hopefully the math here is wrong (it probably is) because that seems like a very difficult goal to achieve, particularly in face the demands for equality in emissions per capita between the developed countries and developing countries.

Live Earth in Retrospect

It is hard to know what to make of the Live Earth concerts on Saturday. It seemed like an odd mixture of environmental activism, hedonism, and consumerism. Can this type of strange brew really lead to radical change? How ironic was it that the webcast of the concerts was sponsored by General Motors, the same company that has been leading the fight against higher fuel efficiency standards for cars over more than a decade. Before you could watch the concerts online you had to see a Chevy commercial. At least the webcast wasn’t sponsored by ExxonMobil, the leading financial backers of misinformation about global warming. But is GM really that far behind in being one of the global warming bad boys? Then there is the issue of pop and rock stars who unfairly or not could be considered as icons for consumerism. Private jets, yachts, numerous homes, etc. When it comes to making carbon footprints many of them are Godzillas. Add to that their international tours and they are responsible for pumping out a heck of a lot of carbon.

There didn’t seem to any songs that compared to the 60s classics such as Blowin’ in the Wind, The Times They Are a-Changin’, I Ain’t Marching Anymore, etc. I agree with Al Gore that music can reach people in ways that are unique but the music at the concerts came up short with regard to delivering any message.

It was hard to understand why there was no concert in India. The big three who are not going along in trying cut greenhouse gas emissions are the US, China, and India. All three will have undertake all out efforts to cut emissions if there is any hope of limiting global warming before climate change reaches catastrophic proportions based on what the leading climatologists are saying.

Of course Live Earth is only one small part of the overall efforts to address climate change. Most of what is happening does not make headlines. Perhaps the real hope for change lies in the less glitzy stuff that is going on.

Dem Debaters Don’t Dwell on Global Warming

Nobody expected global warming to be a main topic at the recent debate by Democratic presidential candidates held at Howard University but in retrospect it seems surprising that so little was said about it. Major problems such as the war in Iraq, an inadequate health care system, inequalities in education were, and discrimination against blacks were addressed in depth but global warming was not. It is particularly surprising that none of the debaters mentioned global warming when the topic turned to helping Africa. The reports on climate change indicate that the adverse consequences will be felt most severely in Africa and Asia, particularly among the poor with Africa seemingly in line to take the hardest hit. Not even, Mike Gravel, the former senator from Alaska, who seemed to stray quite far from the more conventional views did not say anything about how global warming needs to be addressed to prevent catastrophe in Africa. If Al Gore had been one of the debaters it is hard to imagine that global warming would have gotten so little attention. At least next Saturday at the Live Earth concerts he will have his chance to tell everyone about the need to fight global warming to save Africa and all of the other continents.

China Zips Past the US as Number One Carbon Dioxide Emitter

After all the speculation about when China would pass the US in emissions of carbon dioxide, this year, or in 2008, or later, it turns out that China has already attained the dubious distinction as the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide according to an article in the Guardian. It was the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency which came up with this surprising finding. The calculations show that China actually outdid the US in carbon dioxide emissions last year by a whopping 8%. A scientist from the agency in the Netherlands said that the difference in carbon dioxide emissions between China and the US was so great in 2006 that almost surely China also took the lead as the number one greenhouse gas emitter. There it is, we have a new champ. Of course on a per capita basis China isn’t close to the US in pumping out greenhouse gases. The US quadruples China. No contest. Now that the China has passed the US in carbon dioxide emissions the prognosticators can turn their attention to India. In what year will India pass the US? Let the guessing begin.

Carbon Offsets Are Offsetting More Guilt than Carbon

An investigative report in the Guardian continues to strip away the claims about the benefis that have been touted for carbon offsets. According to the report very little carbon has actually been offset for two reasons:

“First, these schemes are unregulated and wide open to fraud.”

“Second…even the most well-intentioned schemes suffer from basic weaknesses in the idea of carbon offsetting - an idea which flows not from environmentalists and climate scientists trying to design a way to reverse global warming but from politicians and business executives trying to meet the demands for action while preserving the commercial status quo.”

It seems likely that no matter how little is actually accomplished by carbon offsets people will continue to buy offsets because it makes one feel like one is doing something about global warming. The main contribution of carbon offsets might be to make money for both those who are honest and have the best intentions and those who are ethically challenged and simply out to make a quick buck. There are of course many other methods available to fight global warming but whether they will be employed in time on a wide enough basis seems at the moment very uncertain.

China and India Say No Thank You to G8 Climate Deal

According to an article on the Telegraph.co.uk website both China and India have rejected the G8 climate change deal in which it was inferred that when negotiations on specifics of greenhouse gas reductions take place developing countries would be included. Responses from leaders in China and India imply that these two highly populated countries expect to work more in tandem on climate change and want the developed countries to go first. The developed countries should have already gone first. The potential threat of global warming was well understood in the 1980s and became more clear in the early 1990s with the first report was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The US should have taken the lead back then, but instead did nothing. So here we are in 2007 with China and India, now with booming economies that are churning out greenhouse gases at an alarming rate, saying that the developed countries should take the lead and the developed countries saying that the developing countries must be included. Basically we seem to have a circle of statements going nowhere.

Validity of Kyoto Carbon Savings Questioned

A report in the Guardian says that “The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world….” The CDM is one of the main ways being used by countries trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach the targets set under the Kyoto Protocol. According to the Guardian report UN paperwork indicated the following:

Most of the concern is around the crucial CDM test of "additionality" - proof that a project is delivering cuts in greenhouse gases that would not otherwise have happened. In an unpublished report, one of the CDM board's expert advisers, Axel Michaelowa, examined all 52 Indian projects which had been registered up to May 2006 and found that a third of them failed this additionality test.

Mr Michaelowa found evidence of projects supplying false information which was then accepted by the companies who were supposed to check it. In one case cited in the report, he accuses an Indian company of making statements which were "blatantly false". Despite his protests, that scheme was approved.

There are enough obstacles to achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on a scale sufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change without integrity being a major problem. Add concerns about integrity of the process and hopes for success grow that much dimmer. Maybe the first step in solving the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be figuring out a way to reduce human greed. Bring on the psychologists.

US Fails to Embrace G8 Global Warming Proposals

The Washington Post reports that the environmental organization Greenpeace has leaked a document showing that the US is fundamentally opposed to proposals made by Germany to combat global warming which would involve timetables and targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The proposals by Germany are being made to secure an agreement at the G8 summit which will be held on June 6 to 8 in Heiligendamm, Germany. The US opposition is hardly surprising. The Bush administration has almost always seemed more interested in following its extreme conservative ideology than in solving problems. Ideological triumph appears to be its ultimate objective. The disasters of Iraq and Katrina and the looming disaster of climate change do not seem to matter. What does matter is gutting government regulations and spreading unfettered capitalism. It seems clear that we will have to wait for 2009 until any real action is taken on the international level to fight global warming, however, with the window of opportunity rapidly closing based on the latest scientific findings even that might be too late.

Has a Key Global Warming Tipping Point Already Been Passed?

An explanation by climate scientists of why carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have recently been spiking suggests that global warming is now reducing the ability of the environment to absorb carbon dioxide from human sources. An article in The Sydney Morning Herald says that scientists have been fearing that increasing temperatures could reduce carbon absorption by the environment. If this tipping point has in fact been reached, then even the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which said that reduction of carbon emissions must begin globally no later than 2015 to avoid catastrophic climate change (see previous post) may need to be revised to an even more pessimistic conclusion. The research team, which published their findings in Geophysical Research Letters, studied the spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during 2002 to 2003. The scientists found that the only explanation for the spike was that because of unusual conditions of heat and dryness plants took up less carbon dioxide that they normally do. So, is unstoppable global warming already here? Perhaps that might be the next inconvenient truth.

Only About Three Thousand Days Left to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms that time is quickly running out to take effective action against global warming. According to the Guardian, “The report said global emissions must peak by 2015 for the world to have any chance of limiting the expected temperature rise to 2 C, which would still leave billions of people short of water by 2050.” That’s eight years or about 100 months or approximately 3000 days. The consequences of global warming are expected to be catastrophic if the 2 C limit is exceeded. Not much time to go from annual global increases of greenhouse gas emissions to annual reductions. Perhaps naming a specific year by which the U turn must occur will help. Nothing like a tight deadline to get people’s attention. Nevertheless, most factors point to continued increases of greenhouse gas emissions globally for decades to come: increasing populations; spreading affluence in the developing world; reluctance of the US, China, and India to agree to any mandatory cap on emissions; the abundance of coal as a cheap source of energy; the ability of large oil and coal companies to protect their profits regardless of the environmental consequences; the energy inefficiency that has been built into the way of life in the US; etc. It may still be too early to throw in the towel. The political dynamics could be changed by next US election in November of 2008. Perhaps when the election results become clear it will be time to head for the linen closet.

Step It Up to 95% Reduction in Carbon Emissions

The photos of Step It Up events from last Saturday showing banners calling for Congress to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 may not have reached individual members of Congress yet and already the 80% figure appears to be too low. According to a report in Reuters two scientists from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway are saying that to hold global warming to a 2 C increase from preindustrial levels (anything beyond that level of warming is considered to be extremely dangerous) the wealthy countries such as the United States would have to reduce emissions by 95% from 2000 levels by 2050. Overall global emissions would have to be reduced by 80%, the Step It Up figure, but since developing countries such as China and India would not be expected to reduce their emissions by that much the wealthy countries would have to make up the difference. Al Gore actually called for a 90% reduction when he spoke before the congressional committees a few weeks ago so he was closer to the mark. The scientists, who will be publishing their paper in the journal Climatic Change, also made this depressing statement: “Any delay in implementing emissions reductions will make the 2 degree target practically unreachable.” Do we have until 2009 at least? Seems unlikely much will happen before then given the present occupant of the White House.

StepItUp WrapUp

The StepItUp events of last Saturday are now over and we will probably have to wait awhile to really assess how successful they were. Clearly with respect to number of people participating they fell far short of the larger civil rights and anti-war protests but I think it is fair to say that StepItUp was the largest photo-op event in the history of US protest movements. It was photo-ops from sea to shining sea. Can great photos take the place of mass demonstrations and nonviolent civil disobedience to accomplish political goals? Maybe that is what will work, a thousand “Kodak moments” only these days the photos are all digital.

I participated in an event on a farm in Bedford Hills, New York, which is about 40 miles north of New York City. This type of event never could have occurred before Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” and before Katrina devastated New Orleans. Politicians and other speakers warned us about the dangers of global warming and how we must take action quickly. The photo shows Congressman John Hall addressing the crowd.

The results of StepItUp seemed to both signify hope but also disappointment. The fact that tens of thousands of people actually went to global warming protest rallies is a hopeful sign. Some sort of threshold was crossed. It was disappointing, however, because in many states last Saturday was just business as usual with only a few scattered events held in those states. If as Thomas Friedman says “green is the new red, white, and blue,” the word sure hasn’t gotten out in large swaths of America.

Carbon Offset Tree Planting Can Spur Global Warming

More evidence that using carbon offsets to plant trees is a bad idea has been presented by scientists from Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists. According to a report in the Guardian the scientists found that tree planting increases warming unless it occurs within a thin strip of tropical land at the equator. The problem with planting trees elsewhere is that whereas grassy areas and snow reflect a lot of sunlight back out of the atmosphere, trees, being dark in color, absorb most of the suns rays. This soaking up of the heat overwhelms the cooling effect of absorbing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. In areas near the equator trees promote the formation of convective clouds which produce cooling and the overall effect of adding trees in such tropical areas is cooling.

Although it appears that planting trees outside of the tropics increases global warming the scientists by no means advocate chopping down trees in nontropical regions to combat global warming since trees have many important functions such as providing habitat for various animals and plants, protecting watersheds, etc. It therefore appears that outside of the tropics that the main goal should be to preserve the forests that we already have.

The IPCC Predicts a Real Gloomy Future

Earlier today the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its summary report for policymakers on the effects of global warming and nobody can accuse these scientists of being optimists. There were a few good news things but as whole the report spelled out mostly a future of gloom and doom. The most gloomy prospects were for the poor, particularly for those poverty-stricken people living in Africa and Southeast Asia. No continent escaped the pessimistic forecast. The report added many details on why pumping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide can be viewed as a foolish experiment on a global scale which will lead to dire consequences almost everywhere. We have pretty much known this for the last 20 years. But the level of certainty has increased.

The main good news, if you can call it that, is that it is believed that there still is time to avoid the worst. The next report from the IPCC which will be issued on May 7 will explain how to do it. Whether right wing politicians in the United States will continue to attack the science or finally concede the obvious that these scientists with all their sophisticated equipment and methods for studying nature really know what they are talking about remains perhaps the biggest question.

Carbon Trading Schemes Fail to Live Up to Hype

If we have to rely to “carbon cap and trade” schemes to save us from global warming our goose will be cooked as the saying goes if Michael Dorsey from Dartmouth College is right. Writing in today’s Los Angeles Times, Dorsey cities an economic think tank in Europe called Researchers at Open Europe in stating the following about the much-heralded European Union carbon trading scheme:

They concluded that the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme represents "botched central planning rather than a real market." As a result, the report said, carbon trading has not resulted in an overall decline of the EU's carbon dioxide emissions.

Worse, the early evidence suggested that the trading scheme financially rewarded companies — mainly petroleum, natural gas and electricity generators — that disproportionately emit carbon dioxide. The pollution credits given to the companies by their respective governments were booked as assets to be valued at market prices. After the EU carbon market collapsed, accusations of profiteering were widespread. In fall 2006, a Citigroup report concluded that the continent's biggest polluters had been the winners, with consumers the losers.

If citizens and politicians keep believing the carbon cap and trade hype it is obvious that we could easily come to believe that we are confronting the global warming problem when in fact we are spinning our wheels and dishing out even more profits to the polluters. A straightforward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions seems like the our only real hope of averting climate change catastrophe.

Forget About Using Nuclear Power to Stop Global Warming

This blog began last September with a post titled “Nuclear Power Not Answer.” It was about the views of antinuclear activist Helen Caldicott who wrote a book in which she gave many reasons why nuclear power can not be used to solve the problem of global warming. A new report by the Oxford Research Group titled “Secure Energy, Civil Nuclear Power, security and Global Warming” also tosses cold water on the idea that building more nuclear power plants should be a key strategy for combating global warming. An article in Reuters said the report points out that a major problem with building the thousands of nuclear power plants that would be needed is that the amount of uranium needed to run the plants is in limited supply and therefore, the only feasible way to do it would be to reprocess the spent fuel in order to obtain plutonium as a fuel. This would create many opportunities for terrorists and criminals to obtain material for making nuclear weapons. Also, as Helen Caldicott emphasized, although the nuclear plants don’t release greenhouse gases the entire process from mining the uranium to building the plants requires lots of energy and therefore large amounts of greenhouse gases would be released anyway.

Despite the drawbacks of using nuclear power to fight global warming many conservatives are embracing the idea and an explanation for this has been offered by Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles Times. Chait says the following:

You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.

In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

Dakotas Step It Up

A few weeks ago it looked like every state in the United States except North and South Dakota would have Step Up Events on April 14th, National Day of Climate Action. However, both Dakotas have now joined in the fun. In North Dakota there are events planned in Belcourt and Fargo and in South Dakota events are planned in Big Stone City, Rapid City, and Vermillion. According to the Step It Up 2007 website there are now 1,022 events planned in the United States.

China, the US, and India Lead Global Coal-Burning Binge

According to an analysis by the Christian Science Monitor of plans around the world to build coal-fired power plants during the next five years, pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will reach new levels, with these plants adding another 1.2 billion tons of this greenhouse gas each year. Coal-burning plants are being planned in 37 countries including eight in the European Union which has taken the lead in fighting global warming. China, the US, and India in that order are planning on building the most new coal-fired generating capacity. According to the Monitor, if all these plants in the 37 countries are built by 2012 there would be 7,474 coal-fired plants in the world pouring out 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, a healthy slice of the predicted 31 billion tons from all sources. One ominous note pointed out in the article is that this amount of carbon dioxide exceeds the “business as usual” projections of most climate models. Considering the catastrophic consequences of the business as usual predictions for climate change already being churned out by the models this is worrisome indeed.

It hard to come to any other conclusion that we are on a reckless course to disaster. Nevertheless, many conservatives are still clinging to an outdated ideology that opposes government regulation of industry and the need for tax increases (carbon tax) to shape public policy and hence refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Without a political consensus in the US the path out of this mess appears to be blocked.

US Sinks Environment Ministers Conference on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The G8 environment ministers who gathered in Potsdam, Germany March 16th and 17th to set new limits on greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to fight global warming accomplished absolutely nothing thanks to the opposition of the US on key issues. The Inter Press Service News Agency reports that according to German environment minister Sigman Gabriel only the US opposed consensus on a global carbon emissions trading scheme and that industrialized counties should assist in achieving a “balance of interest” between economic growth and environmental protection in developing countries.

Since everyone already knew the position of the US before the meeting one can only wonder why this special meeting of G8 environment ministers was even held. Usually these ministers meet during the G8 summit which this year will be held in June. What was the rush to accomplish nothing? Clearly there is an urgency to replace the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012, but with George W. Bush at the helm in the US everyone knows that trying to take action on this issue is futile.

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.