Uncategorized

Climate change is here and now and getting personal

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

-----

A disturbing development in the march of global warming, revealed in science's use of the English language.

Not long ago, most climate scientists stuck to the future tense when they talked about the impacts of global warming. Now, they are using the present tense -- and using it more and more often. Now, they tell us the damages have arrived in the United States.

In other words, climate change isn't just a problem for our kids anymore. It's here and now and getting personal.

What concerns climate scientists today is not only that the adverse impacts are showing up faster than they expected; it's that political leaders are moving slower than they should. Climate scientists from around the world will meet next month in Copenhagen "to warn the world's politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming," according to The Guardian.

They'll also introduce information to update the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings now are considered conservative and "wishy washy" by many in the science community, in light of more recent research and its more extreme conclusions. As Michael Lemonick reports in Yale Environment 360:

Since (2007), new reports have continued to pour in from all over the world, and climate modelers have continued to feed them into their supercomputers. And while a full accounting will have to wait for the next IPCC report, which is already being assembled (but which will not go to the printer until 2014), the news is not encouraging.

The new reports, many of them documented in an October 2008 paper by the World Wildlife Fund, include estimates that sea level rise may be triple what scientists projected just two years ago; that we should start preparing for an average atmospheric temperature rise of 4°C, twice the level the European Union defines as "dangerous"; that the Arctic Circle may be ice-free 20 years ahead of the most pessimistic IPCC projections; that carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating faster than expected; and that some of these adverse impacts already are locked and irreversible for the next 1,000 years.

Last year, the United Nations invoked the present tense in its finding that "nine out of 10 disasters recorded are climate-related, while the number of disasters has doubled to more than 400 annually over the past two decades." John Holmes, the Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, concluded:

Activists slam Finnish paper maker for logging ‘virgin forest’

HELSINKI — Environmental groups on Thursday blasted Finnish paper maker Stora Enso for logging old growth forests in northern Finland, insisting the unique trees should be protected. Environmental groups Greenpeace, Suomen Luonnonsuojeluliitto and Luonto-Liitto said they had found that some trees more than 300 years old had been logged in Finnish Lapland in the north […]

Oscar-related news and musings

The Oscars are this weekend! With the usual amount of Hollywood splashiness -- though p'raps less than in years past -- there are green efforts going on, from Global Green's star-studded pre-party on Thursday to the first-ever use of dry-cleaning bags to hold swag (!) at an after-party. Eco-leaning films have garnered nominations, including Werner Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World and the I-was-there Katrina film Trouble the Water. Ultimate eco-lesson-with-a-heart Wall-E even got a few nods, though it was -- as one Grist staffer put it -- "screwed over for best picture."

On top of that, yummy host Hugh Jackman has racked up some eco-cred of his own over the years.

Alas, none of the five films nominated for best picture are particularly greenish. But just for fun, I've reimagined them as such below the fold, with a little help from Oscar's own synopses.

What is the 'best available control technology' for CO2 from coal plants?

My monster post on EPA regulation of CO2 yesterday seems to have scared everyone away. So let me ask a simpler question.

As things stand, regulating CO2 at power plants under the Clean Air Act would require that such plants install "best available control technology" (BACT) for reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions.

Here's my question: for a coal-fired power plant, what is the best available technology for limiting CO2 emissions?

Carbon sequestration might be "best," but it's not "available," despite all the hype. It hasn't been tested; there are no clear regulations governing it; it's horribly expensive; etc.

Far as I know, though, that's basically the only way to reduce CO2 emissions at a coal plant.

So if that's not available, and nothing else is available, what can a coal plant do but ... stop burning coal?

Does that mean a BACT requirement under the Clean Air Act would effectively shut down every coal plant in the country in one fell swoop, thereby eliminating 50 percent of the country's electricity generation? Will it force all coal plants to switch to natural gas, causing natural gas prices to skyrocket? If not, what does it mean? Anyone? Bueller?

Ocean dead zones to expand, 'remain for thousands of years'

I doubt geoengineering will ever be practical as a primary strategy for dealing with climate change (see here and here). That said, I don't consider most of the efforts to pull CO2 out of the air geoengineering -- that is ungeoengineering our self-inflicted climate wound. And those efforts are only plausible with super-aggressive mitigation that keeps concentrations close to 450 ppm.

It's strategies like injecting sulfur into the atmosphere that should worry people the most. Those strategies have many flaws, but among the worst is that they do nothing to stop humanity from turning the oceans into one giant acidic deadzone.

A new study in Nature Geoscience, ($ub. req'd, abstract below) makes crystal clear why very serious mitigation must always be humanity's primary strategy for averting climate catastrophe. As AFP reported on the study:

Global warming may create "dead zones" in the ocean that would be devoid of fish and seafood and endure for up to two millennia ...

Its authors say deep cuts in the world's carbon emissions are needed to brake a trend capable of wrecking the marine ecosystem and depriving future generations of the harvest of the seas.

Precisely. This study makes a matching pair with NOAA stunner: Climate change "largely irreversible for 1000 years," with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe.

Even worse, of course, is that while there are many plausible, albeit expensive and untried on large scale, strategies for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is far from clear how one does that from the ocean.

Here is more detail on this important study and on oceanic dead zones:

Memo to Obama: CCS won't make tar sands clean. Memo to all: They ain't 'oil sands.'

Climate Wire ($ub. req'd) reports this morning, "Obama says 'technology' can fix oil sands skirmish":

President Obama said "clean energy mechanisms," like carbon capture and storage, would allow the United States to continue consuming Canadian sand oil, an emission-heavy fuel that often requires strip-mining vast stretches of boreal forest in the province of Alberta.

The assertion yesterday came two days before Obama is scheduled to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa, and it promises to raise questions among environmental groups, which see the oil sands as a key contributor to climate change.

Uhh, no, no, no, and no. First, the tar sands are a key contributor to climate change -- it is absurd for ClimateWire to hedge (and weaken) this fact by attributing it solely to environmental groups.

Second, the "biggest global warming crime ever seen" (see here) cannot be made green with carbon capture and storage, even in the unlikely event CCS proves practical for the tar sands. If the President wants to understand everything the tar sands would have to do to be "clean," he should start with the pastoral letter of Canadian Bishop Luc Bouchard (see here).

Third, Obama said, "I think that it is possible, for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal." Did he really say "oil sands"? I can understand why greenwashing Canadian shills use the phrase rather than the traditional term "tar sands" (see here), but not why the U.S. media does, and certainly not somebody as smart as Obama.

No doubt the phrase makes it seem like, oh, I don't know, maybe up through the sand came a bubblin crude, oil that is, black gold, Texas tea, Athabasca euphemism (see ClimateProgress commenter, Jim Eager, here).

Big Coal's far-out proposal for an economic stimulus

Last week the coal lobbying group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity held a press conference to announce a study of the employment and other economic benefits of building new coal plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

The plan, developed by Denver-based BBC Research and Consulting, looks at the effects of building 38, 122, or 188 new coal plants, each with 90 percent CCS.

Since "jobs" and "stimulus" are the watchwords these days in Washington, ACCCE decided to emphasize the "6.9 million total job-years of labor" that would be created by building, fueling, and operating these new coal plants.

Well, maybe. But there's a problem with the time frame. The "stimulus" jobs being trumpeted by the ACCCE would not begin to appear until around 2020, according to what the utility industry's own research institute, EPRI, told Congress in May [PDF].

In short, this is vapor employment, jobs that won't start to materialize for several presidential administrations down the road -- maybe during the second term of Huckabee/Palin.

What's depressing is that ACCCE actually talked leaders of four major unions into being its sock puppets at the press conference. One was Abraham Breeley of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, who said, "This study demonstrates that [coal with carbon capture and storage] has the potential to create literally millions of jobs for workers across the country, in every region -- and I think it's very important to point out that these are jobs that can sustain families."

Message to Breeley and comrades: Stop hanging out with the coal boys. Instead, go down the street to the American Wind Power Association, which just reported that 83,000 people were building and operating wind farms in 2008. Or check out the Solar Energy Industries Association, which just reported that the newly signed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will create 110,000 jobs in the solar industry in the next two years.

Compare those 193,000 solar and wind power jobs to the 174,000 jobs currently provided by coal mining (83,000) + coal transportation (31,000) + coal-fired power generation (60,000).

Not only is combined solar/wind employment beginning to move past total coal-related employment, but the gap is expected to widen.

Ashley Judd, Silas House rally against mountaintop removal

While ABC-TV maven Diane Sawyer missed the bigger picture this week in her myopic portrait of Appalachian poverty in "Children of the Mountains," hundreds of Kentuckians converged on Frankfort to celebrate their mountains and call for an end to mountaintop removal. Led by actress Ashley Judd and author Silas House, the Kentuckians rallied behind a "stream-saver" bill slowly passing through the state legislature.

Eastern Kentucky native Judd pulled no punches in her speech on the state capitol steps:

"Make no mistake about it: The coal companies are thriving. Even in this bleak economy, they are thriving. What is dying is our mountains. And they are dying so fast, my friends, so shockingly fast."

Watch a video of Judd speaking, from the Kentucky Herald-Leader:

Bestselling novelist House, a native of the eastern Kentucky coalfields, called on Gov. Steve Beshear (D-Ky.) to have the courage to confront the dirty realities of coal:

Bob Geldof takes a big ol' swig of biofuel

Back in the 1980s, Bob Geldof urged Westerners to send food to famine-stricken nations in Africa. Now, evidently, he wants Africans to burn food in their car engines. Get this:

Sir Bob Geldof will be a keynote speaker at the 2009 World Biofuels Markets (WBM) congress and exhibition, to be held in Brussels on the 16-18th March.

Evidently, Sir Bob will make the case for biofuels as panacea for Africa's economic woes. As is often the case, Geldof -- organizer of the 1985 bi-continental blowout Live Aid concert -- will be in exalted company. Only this time, it's not the likes of Jagger and Jacko, rather, it's big-time energy execs and pols.

Sir Bob joins Lord Browne, former CEO of BP, Dr Hermann Scheer, Member of German Parliament and nearly 200 CEO's and expert speakers.

The events list of main speakers includes another exec tied to BP, as well as the head of Brazil's sugarcane ethanol trade group (UNICA) and the chief of struggling U.S. cellulosic ethanol company Verenium.

Wow

Now CEI is going to bat for the bottled water industry. Is there any malignant industry these guys won't shill for?

"Billions of tons of wasted, useless plastic and transportation emissions: they call it pollution. We call it life."