Articles by Joseph Romm

New analysis explores whether Congress can do a better job with CCS than Bush administration

One of biggest debates about climate solutions is whether coal generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is going to be practical and affordable on the timescale needed to avoid catastrophic outcomes. And, of course, there are many who don't think coal should be saved at all.

I am not in the second camp, but I doubt coal with CCS is likely to exceed one wedge (I'll discuss this more next week). And we probably need 14 wedges to stay below 450 ppm. I have no doubt concentrated solar will delivery far more power than coal with CCS -- two or three wedges are possible.

The coal industry has long been in denial about the reality of human-caused global warming, so they are woefully unprepared for what is to come. And the administration has botched FutureGen, the centerpiece of its CCS effort.

Can Congress do a better job? The answer can be found in a new analysis by Bob Sussman and Ken Berlin for the Center for American Progress, "Maximizing Carbon Capture and Storage Under the Lieberman Warner Global Warming Bill." Here is a summary:

Reflective paint and glaze can reduce the need for A/C in your car

The following post is by Earl Killian, guest blogger at Climate Progress.

-----

California's AB 32 cap on greenhouse gas emissions has its regulatory agencies working to find a set of measures that will amount to savings enough to cut 2020 emissions by about 30 percent. Since 12 years is too short to change California's vehicle fleet or its power plants, myriad measures are being considered, each rather small but hoped to make a difference cumulatively.

One such effort is to find paints and coatings to reduce how hot cars get when parked, so the driver is less likely to turn on the air conditioner:

Does the IPCC dangerously assume ‘spontaneous’ decarbonization?

No.

The central point of the recent Nature article "Dangerous Assumptions" (available here [PDF]) is that the IPCC made dangerous assumptions in their reference scenarios:

... the scenarios assume a certain amount of spontaneous technological change and related decarbonization. Thus, the IPCC implicitly assumes that the bulk of the challenge of reducing future emissions will occur in the absence of climate policies. We believe that these assumptions are optimistic at best and unachievable at worst, potentially seriously underestimating the scale of the technological challenge associated with stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations.

That would be a powerful conclusion, if it were true. But it isn't, as this post will make very clear. In fact, I suspect most people will be quite surprised at how clear it is that this conclusion is not true, given that it appears in a major science journal.

First, I think it is worth noting that the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, said late last year:

If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.

Does that sound like the head of a group that has underestimated the scale of the climate challenge?

Mag’s green issue exalts cap-and-trade

I now seem to be on some media distribution list to gin up early PR. Green publicists of the world, bring it on!

Here are links to key stories (plus some summaries, from Time):

This Week's Cover Features a Green Border -- Only the Second Issue in TIME's 85-Year History Without the Trademarked Red Border

(New York, April 17, 2008) -- In this week's issue, TIME managing editor Richard Stengel writes in his Letter to Readers, "This is our latest environment special issue but also a historic first: for this one issue, we've exchanged our trademarked Red Border for a green one. By doing so, we are sending a clear -- and colorful -- message to our readers about the importance of this subject, not just to Americans but to everyone around the world as well." The cover story -- "Green Is the New Red, White and Blue" -- written by TIME's Bryan Walsh, "is our call to arms to make this issue -- perhaps the most important one facing the planet -- a true national priority."

(Note: It's a pretty good story, as one expects from this magazine. That said, I take issue with one of the paragraphs in the cover story -- honorable mention to whoever figures out which paragraph it is. I'll post the answer tomorrow.)