Uncategorized

'Irreversible' climate change does not mean 'unstoppable' climate change

Note to media: The Ghost of Climate Yet to Come says, "It's not too late!"

RealClimate makes a good point with the title of its post, "Irreversible Does Not Mean Unstoppable" about the recent NOAA led paper (see here):

We at Realclimate have been getting a lot of calls from journalists about this paper, and some of them seem to have gone all doomsday on us.

Indeed, this is the perfect paper for someone, like say, Lou Dobbs, who can go from hard-core doubt/denial to credulous hopelessness in one breath, as he did Friday (h/t ClimateScienceWatch):

Let's assume, for right now, that there is such a thing as climate change, let's assume it's manmade. What indication-what evidence do we have, what reason do we have to believe that mankind can do anything significantly to reverse it because a number of people, as you know in the last two weeks, are reported that, that, this is a 1,000-year trend irrespective of what we do.

Yeah, let's assume, for right now, there is climate change and let's further assume it's man-made since there's like no factual basis for actually knowing those things. Then let's tell the public the latest research means if there is man-made climate change, the situation is now hopeless -- when in fact the latest research makes it all the more urgent to keep total emissions and concentrations as low as posisble

Seriously. This guy has his own hour TV show on a major cable network -- albeit one that fired its staff covering science and environment and hired a psychic to cover climate change (OK, let's assume, for right now, that I made up that last part).

The whole world has become Dickensian, which just happens to remind me of another Dickens story relevant to the theme that irreversible does not mean unstoppable:

In which industry conquers nature

This is neither here nor there, but it just occurred to me: Last night, the Steelers -- a team named after Pittsburgh's legendary industrial past -- beat the Cardinals, a team closely identified with a bird. Industry beats nature. Prophecy?

Vote today on your fave carbon cap video

Environmental Defense Action Fund is holding a video contest to "explain in 30 seconds how capping global warming pollution could help solve our oil addiction."

They've narrowed down the video submissions to the top five and are encouraging everyone to vote on a favorite by tonight. Check out two of the five videos below and vote on the best one here. The winning video producer will receive the Climate Activist's Choice Award, which comes with a $1,000 prize.

A small example of dynamic ice

Looking up from my keyboard, I saw a perfect illustration of what's happening underneath ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Two recent snowstorms dumped eight inches of heavy snow, followed by an afternoon of very warm air and a sharp rain. The rainwater lubricated the snow packs on my neighbor's roof and they began to slide. The temperature fell quickly with nightfall, leaving us with a perfect example of dynamic ice.

See the photo below the fold:

Yes, carbon taxes are more transparent than trade system

Proponents of carbon trading over carbon taxes deny that carbon taxes are more transparent -- because you can play any game with a tax you can with a trading system. But the point of transparency is not that games become impossible, but that they become more obvious, and thus easier to stop.

When it comes to handing out permits (grandfathering) rather than auctioning them, carbon tax advocates clearly have the better of this argument.

The equivalent with a carbon tax would be to write big polluters a check -- not more difficult in the abstract, but a lot more visible than creating a property right.

"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light..." John 3:20.

How awful does a bill have to get to lose your support?

Here is a question for cap-and-trade supporters. Nancy Pelosi has already said she wants to wait until 2010 (she later changed this to late 2009) to get a cap-and-trade bill through. Now maybe you can push one sooner. But to get one through soon (even by the revised late 2009 schedule) you are probably going to have to allow for substantial giveaways (grandfathering) rather than 100% (or anything like 100%) auctioning. You will probably have to give up any certainty claimed for a cap-and-trade by agreeing to a price ceiling (off-ramp/escape clause). You will probably have to allow counterfeit emissions reductions (offsets).

Right now it looks like this will be in any bill, but it will almost certainly be a condition of getting anything through in 2009. And even if you agree to all this, odds are you won't get anything through this year.

So let me ask you: what is your limit for this sort of thing? Is there any point at which you will say, "this is not acceptable, I'll oppose the current bill and try again later"?

[Update] Every cap-and-trade supporter I've run into who considers themselves "practical" about the politics says that 100% auctioning is out of the question, that no off-ramp (price ceiling) is out of the question, that no offsets are out of the question. The above assumes my experience represents the views of "players" on this issue in general. So let me modify this. Is there anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about the practical politics, who supports cap-and-trade who disagrees with these premises?

Let's get a little something in exchange for our biogas

Here's something someone should run with. Via Green Inc. I learned that Sen. Ben Nelson just introduced a bill that would encourage development of the agricultural biogas industry with hopes of including it in the stimulus package. Biogas is a renewable form of natural gas derived from any methane source, like, say, manure. While burning biogas does create carbon emissions, it's more than offset by its effect in eliminating methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas (Marc from the Ethicurean explains how much of an offset in this comment).

In many ways, it's not a particularly high-tech approach and it's currently in common use in China and India - although unlike with the digesters in use in the developing world, the US biogas industry is attempting to significantly increase biogas content to almost pure methane. Because biogas can be produced and used on site as well as shipped via pipeline to power stations, it's theoretically possible for farms to become energy self-sufficient AND deal with excess manure. This isn't a magic bullet, of course, and in the future, farms are likely to use a lot more manure as fertilizer (remember Peak Phosphorus?). But, even in the post-CAFO world we all dream about, there will continue to be excess manure around. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing USDA chief Tom Vilsack means when he talks about developing "new technologies and expanded opportunities in biofuels and renewable energy."

On the verge of revolutionizing the U.S. power grid

Rachel Maddow, a kindred spirit whose heart beats a little faster at the word "infrastructure," has been campaigning recently for more infrastructure spending in the stimulus package. Pointing to the mass blackouts caused by Midwest storms, she asked the other day on her MSNBC show, "Can I put in a request for a grid that works, even in the snow?"

Yes, Rachel, you can! What you want is a smart grid rich in distributed energy resources.

First, it is important to be clear that we have two power grids: a transmission grid, which consists of the big lines carrying power from distant generating stations, and a distribution grid, which carries power in the local area to homes, businesses, etc. Failures on the transmission grid, that's T to us geeks, lead to the really big blackouts like that in the Northeast in August 2003. But most failures -- around 90 percent -- happen on the distribution, or D grid, and they are usually not well publicized.

Electric Power Research Institute estimates that, overall, blackouts and other power disturbances cost the U.S. economy in the range of $119-188 billion (see p. ES-3 [PDF].) By comparison U.S. power customers paid a total of $343.7 billion for electricity in 2007.

The shocking fact is that the costs of an aging and technologically backward power grid adds something like one-third to one-half to our annual electricity costs. Ghost Town Louisville is a poster child, but most power problems do not receive national publicity.

Smart grids sexy enough for Super Bowl

After three and a half hours of Super Bowl, finally, the first eco-related ad, for GE's Ecomagination campaign. Appears smart grids are now sexy enough for prime time:

Guess those falling profits weren't enough to stop them from dropping big bucks tonight, because it was followed shortly thereafter with a wind energy ad:

World's glaciers shrink for 18th year

Like the Wicked Witch of the West, the world is melting.

The University of Zurich's World Glacier Monitoring Service reports that in 2006 and 2007 that the world's glaciers lost 2 meters (2000 mm) of thickness on average:

They note, "The new data continues the global trend in accelerated ice loss over the past few decades." The rate of ice loss is twice as fast as a decade ago.

This is consistent with other recent research (see here and "AGU 2008: Two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003").

Bloomberg has an excellent story on report: