Uncategorized

Scientists and other experts rattle off options for averting climate catastrophe

London’s Independent newspaper asked climate scientists to answer a simple question: should humanity “prepare a ‘Plan B’ to curb the worst effects of global warming?” Well, ask 40 eggheads a question, and you’ll get a very diverse set of responses. Geo-engineering is the answer! No, focus on carbon sequestration. Wrong again, it’s all about adapting […]

Eco-buzzwords make annual banned words list

Hush your mouth, eco-child: That green buzzword you were about to utter is probably on Lake Superior State University's annual list of banned words. "Green" itself topped the list, with it or "going green" garnering the most nominations. True that. Please, no more press releases titled "Midwives/Fighter Jets/Port-o-Potties Go Green!"

"Carbon footprint" also made the 34th annual List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. And as for "staycation," Dan Muldoon of Omaha, Nebraska, commented with his nomination, "Let's send this word on a slow boat to nowhere."

Regulation and public investment are more efficient means to reduce GHGs than emissions pricing

When I sat down to write about why so-called "command and control" methods are often the most effective and efficient means of fighting climate chaos, I found that Kevin Drum had posted exactly the argument I wanted to refute.

After conceding that it will take more than emissions pricing to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and that response to price signals tends to be small and slow, Drum argues that a price mechanism should be the primary means to fight climate chaos: "Still, generally speaking, taxes and carbon trading are more efficient regulatory mechanisms than command and control, so the more you can rely on them the better."

I think this default conventional wisdom is just plain wrong. Not only is elasticity low, but there are also simple standards by which we can measure energy and greenhouse-gas efficiency. Further, suitable means for increasing efficiency and lowering emissions are known. Given these three conditions, price is not the most efficient way to change behavior.

As examples, consider weather and duct sealing. It's widely acknowledged that sealing buildings yields fast paybacks -- two years or less. Yet most buildings remain under-sealed, with leaky frames and ducts. How do we change this? Well, we can raise the price of energy until people become desperate and seek out contractors. But since we already have quick paybacks, any amount we raise the price is far beyond the cost of saving the energy.

If, as I have suggested in surveys of the literature, demand response to price increases is around -.5, that means it will require $200 in emissions charges to motivate each $100 of consumer investment in energy efficiency. In contrast, investing public funds could insure that a nice woman working for an energy-efficiency utility could seal your home for around $100, plus a bit for administration. Even if that $100+ came from regressive taxation, it would still cost consumers less than a primarily price-driven policy. And if the payback is really two years or less, the government could use its ability to borrow to provide low interest financing, thus bringing the cost to consumers down below the business-as-usual price.

An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist

 

29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C. United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of "a planet in peril" and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these details could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate. Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on 'goals' for emission reduction and 'cap and trade,' have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, "Tell Barack Obama the Truth -- the Whole Truth" [PDF] was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential request¹. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

Who will be the next victims?

A couple weeks ago an earthen damn holding back billions of gallons of coal sludge broke and let loose a torrent of toxic filth.

 

Wonder how long this one is going to hold.

Au revoir, 2008

Well, here we are on the last day of 2008. I feel like I should do some kind of valedictory post, a look back over the year, or predictions for next year, or some kind of list, or ... something. Everybody else is.

But I got nothin'. It's funny, at the end of a year when the world seemed to get faster and crazier -- the epic drama of the election, shriller and shriller warnings from scientists about global warming, the biggest economic crash in a half-century -- I find myself preoccupied with with the small-scale and domestic. My strongest memories of this year will mostly be of moments laughing around the dinner table; my three year old's passionate-if-incoherent stories about the adventures of the "Minium Falcon"; my five year old's first attempts to sound out written words; reading the Narnia books at night, my older boy's head on my shoulder, the little one blinking hazily against sleep.

Thank goodness for the bubble of joy and calm I've got up here in North Seattle. 'Cause it's been an intense year, and next year -- nay, the next decade -- is shaping up to be a white-knuckle roller coaster ride. I'll jump back on it next week, but for now, I'm enjoying the quiet.

Peace and, as always, many thanks to all Grist's readers for their support, knowledge, passion, and participation.

[Postscript: check out Grist's top green stories of 2008.]

Global warming increasing rainfall and intense storms

Hope you've all got umbrellas:

The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics -- the type associated with severe storms and rainfall -- is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

Did the coal industry create its own PR nightmare?

The press coverage of the Tennessee sludge spill has been nothing short of astonishing. Barely a week has passed since the accident and already a Google search for the phrase Tennessee spill produces 2,280,000 results!

Compare that to 1,740,000 for Three Mile Island and 708,000 for Exxon Valdez. In little more than a week, this has become one of the biggest environmental stories in recent decades.

Obviously, the naked fact of being the biggest coal spill in history (100 times larger than the Valdez spill) is reason itself for the intensity of the coverage. But is it also possible that the level of press interest would not be quite so massive were it not for the tens of millions of dollars spent by the coal industry on its "clean coal" advertising campaign?

In international affairs, this is what they call "blowback." The can of "water" that you thought you were throwing on a small fire turns out to be gasoline, and you suddenly find yourselves engulfed in flames.

I wonder what the folks at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity are thinking about all this. Can they keep running the ads as if nothing had happened? If they do run the ads, will people just be reminded of all those icebergs of fly ash floating west of Knoxville?

Just checked on the ACCCE website: silence. Not a word on the Tennessee spill.

Must be in meetings. Or maybe working on the lyrics for next year's clean coal carols.

Former MSHA investigator Tony Oppegard discusses the TVA coal investigation

No one is watching the fallout over the TVA coal ash disaster more closely than Kentucky attorney Tony Oppegard. As the former adviser to the assistant secretary for Mine Safety & Health Administration (U.S. Department of Labor) and former general counsel for the Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals, Oppegard served as the lead investigator for MSHA during the Martin County, Kentucky, coal slurry impoundment failure in the fall of 2000.

As a political appointee, Oppegard lost his job in January 2001 after George W. Bush took office. A career MSHA employee was brought in to take his place and the "investigation" ended quickly, despite the fact that the Martin County coal disaster was one of the worst in history.

I asked Oppegard a few questions about the TVA coal ash disaster, the impending investigation, and what we had learned since the Martin County coal accident.

Biggers: You were the lead investigator of the Martin County Coal Corporation slurry impoundment failure in 2000. Why do you think that disaster received such little media attention?

Oppegard: Primarily because it occurred in rural eastern Kentucky -- and few people outside of those who live there really care about what happens to the land and people of Appalachia. If the impoundment failure had happened in California or New York, it would have been front page news in The New York Times and the Washington Post. Can you imagine emergency rooms in Los Angeles being shut down because of a lack of clean water? Instead, it was deemed "not really that important" by most of the mainstream media. When wildfires consume beautiful homes in the hills of California, it headlines the CBS evening news. But when creeks are fouled and thousands of people go without water for weeks in Appalachia, somehow it's not considered "newsworthy."

Biggers: Why do you not like the term "spill," as it is being used with the TVA coal ash disaster?

Chevron's history of denial, delay, and defamation in the Ecuadorian Amazon

It has been 15 years since a group of Ecuadorian indigenous people filed a lawsuit against Texaco for oil contamination, resulting from 26 years of substandard oil extraction efforts. In those years, Texaco -- acquired by Chevron in 2001 -- consistently has denied responsibility, delayed justice, and defamed the Ecuadorian people who need help the most. In other words, the oil giant has acted like most people expect Big Oil companies to act -- like bullies -- instead of the good corporate citizens that Chevron's advertising campaigns like to portray.

Meanwhile, the Ecuadorians living in Texaco's former dumping ground suffer every day. Texaco released over 18 billion gallons of oil and toxic water into the rainforest from 1964 to 1990. Experts indicate that over 1,000 people have died from cancer. Spontaneous abortions are two to three times more likely to occur in the concession area than in other parts of Ecuador. It's almost impossible to find a family not touched by the illnesses.

Until you see the extent of the contamination, it is hard to believe. Almost 1,000 pits the size of large swimming pools scar an area the size of Rhode Island. Texaco built the pits to dump the remaining oil and toxic water after drilling. To reduce costs, Texaco violated standard industry practice and never lined the pits. As a result, the toxins have flowed directly into the streams and underground water supply. Texaco eventually covered the pits with dirt -- as if hiding the pollution would make it go away -- but never took any real steps to clean up the area. Some people even built their houses on top of the covered pits, thinking that the pits were safe.