Uncategorized

Significant turning points in the rise of the domestic wind industry

"The wind industry now employs more people than coal mining in the United States," reports Todd Woody.

Jerome a Paris notes another portentous development:

For the fourth consecutive year, the US set records in 2008 for the construction of new wind farms, with more than 8,300MW installed in the year, making the country the leader for both yearly installations and, for the first time in many years, overall installed capacity (nudging out Germany which has long been the world leader).

(Despite that, he thinks 2009 will be a rough year for wind, thanks to the late renewal of the PTC and the credit crisis. He recommends a few ways the feds could support wind over the speed bump and help its long-term growth, namely stable, predictable federal rules, preferably a feed-in tariff.)

And finally, in Salon, Jeff Biggers writes about the battle over Coal River Mountain -- the cosmically evil Massey mining subsidiary that wants to blow the mountain up to get at coal vs. the scrappy grassroots coalition that wants to build a wind farm instead. Could this be another turning point in the making?

Report shows that feds have failed to protect marine mammals, even though it's required by law

Pity the poor false killer whale.

Fishermen in Hawaii who set longlines studded with thousands of hooks over dozens of miles often snag the whales -- actually large dolphins -- instead of their desired tuna or swordfish. Even the federal government, in the form of the National Marine Fisheries Service, acknowledges that the false killer whale is seriously threatened by longline fishing. NMFS has named the whale a top priority for protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

In 2004, NMFS determined the fishery was killing false killer whales at a level that mandated action under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, yet the agency has yet to attempt to solve the problem. The Hawaiian longline fishery continues killing false killer whales, unabatedly.

And this isn't an isolated scenario. In a scathing new report [PDF], the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that NMFS has failed to follow through on the directives of the Marine Mammal Protection Act on numerous levels, primarily thanks to a lack of funding and inadequate data.

Major media outlet officially over eco-trend

CNN -- or some overworked and over-it headline writer at CNN -- calls it: "Cisco Goes -- What Else? -- Green." Seriously, Cisco -- that's so 2008.

Arctic sea ice drops below 2007 levels

Arctic sea ice extent just dipped below January 2007 levels in the last few days, according to the daily time series from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

The NSIDC notes that they are showing the data from 2007 on this figure since that year "went on to reach the lowest summer minimum in the satellite record."

The NSIDC also has an interesting 2008 Year-in-Review for cryosphere buffs. It explains why the ice stopped growing for a week in mid-December. It also has an interesting graphic comparing the Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 with 2007:

You can't violate the laws of physics

"The erroneous belief that stabilizing emissions would quickly stabilize the climate supports wait-and-see policies but violates basic laws of physics."

-- Dr. John Sterman, risk analyst at the Sloan School of Business, M.I.T.

Next stop for Obama team: EPA's endangerment finding

Stopped EPA from blocking California's effort to regulate tailpipe GHG emissions. Check!

Stopped a new coal plant. Check!

The next "stop" on the Obama Climate Action Train is the "endangerment finding" so the EPA can finally put a stop on greenhouse gases.

In Massachusetts [vs. EPA], the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act; that EPA must determine whether GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles do or do not endanger public health or welfare, or supply a reason for not making this determination; and that, if EPA makes an "endangerment finding," it must issue regulations.

The key question: Can elevated levels of GHG concentrations be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare? Does the Pope buy papal indulgences carbon offsets?

This is not a tough call for a President who just said: "climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe." And for 1,000 years! Indeed, he campaigned on this very issue (see the October 16 post, "Obama to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant").

In an email to EPA employees [PDF], Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote of "five priorities that will receive my personal attention" -- the first of which is "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions":

As Congress does its work [on global warming legislation], we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court's decision recognizing EPA's obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act.

Greenwire ($ub. req'd) has the full story:

Revkin has leading system dynamics expert Sterman on NOAA's 1,000-years-of-hell paper

I am a big fan of MIT's John Sterman, one of the world's leading experts on systems thinking.

In a post on "The Greenhouse Effect and the Bathtub Effect," Andrew Revkin notes that Sterman's work trying to reduce the biggest source of climate confusion is related to the new NOAA-led paper that I discussed here: Climate change "largely irreversible for 1000 years," with permanent Dust Bowls in the Southwest and around the globe.

The bathtub analogy is that while atmospheric concentrations (the total stock of CO2 already in the air) might be thought of as the water level in the bathtub, emissions (the yearly new flow into the air) are the rate of water flowing into a bathtub. We need to lower the level, not just the flow. A great video clarifying the issue is here. It is narrated by my friend Andrew Jones. If you want to play the simulation itself, go here.

Revkin got Sterman's comments on the paper, which I am reposting below:

Holmes Hummel on climate policy design

Holmes Hummel is a "Lecturer and Policy Specialist at the UC-Berkeley Energy Resources Group, and previously served as a Congressional Science Fellow focused on energy and climate policy development." That's from her bio. What's not on her bio is the fact that she's smarter than you and 10 of your smartest friends, combined.

She's put together a PowerPoint slideshow and taped a lecture titled, "U.S. Energy and Climate Policy on the Road Ahead," and it's worth your while to give it a read/listen. Find it under the "Recent Posts" section, here.

U.N. climate official clarifies remarks about near-term summit

Monday, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer sounded an awful lot like he was making a major announcement about a newly planned international summit on climate change. As the Financial Times reported, the U.N.'s top climate official said a meeting was necessary to lay groundwork before the international climate conference in Copenhagen this December. De Boer's remarks indicated that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon felt the same way and was looking to call a summit in February or March.

But the secretary-general's office was mum on the matter when contacted by Grist yesterday. Today, de Boer's office confirmed that nothing is planned as of yet.

"The Secretary General is planning to organize a High Level Event with Heads of State and Government for all Members States in the margins of the General Assembly in September," John Hay, a spokesperson for de Boer, wrote in an e-mail. "He is also exploring other avenues to galvanize Heads of State and Government and support high level political engagement throughout the next 11 months. No specifics, however, are confirmed at this time."

The possibility of 30 to 40 heads of state meeting as early as February or March was a "personal hope" on de Boer's part, not a concrete plan, Hay said. One of the newest heads of state, President Barack Obama, is likely to have a big say in the timing.

"Obviously, this is designed to get the U.S. back in play," said John Anthony, communications director for climate and energy for the United Nations Foundation. "[But] just look at what's happening domestically. It's a real crowded calendar on many fronts."

Reuters has more on what de Boer wants to accomplish before Copenhagen.

NYT gets schooled by readers on efficiency

Last week The New York Times had an editorial singing the praises of energy efficiency. It wasn't bad, nor particularly great -- mixing up conservation with efficiency, focusing too much on oil/transportation, and never giving a decent sense of scale.

On Sunday, however, came a battery of letters in response to the editorial, all of which are excellent and all of which expand the focus in new ways. One of them is from Tom Casten, father of our own Sean and champion of recycled energy. Another emphasizes steady long-term research; several praise solar power's potential; another notes the key role of walkable communities and transit; another mentions meat consumption.

There's a lot of untapped, unaggregated expertise out there on this. I hope the NYT notices the great feedback and pursues the issue further. Imagine how much efficiency we could wring out of our economy if we had the whole culture focused on it.