Climate Climate & Energy

We’re inside it

We all know buildings are part of the global warming problem, but many people don't recognize how central they are to the solution. A recent UNEP report -- "Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities" -- shines light on how relevant and accessible building-related climate change solutions are. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said:

By some conservative estimates, the building sector world-wide could deliver emission reductions of 1.8 billion tonnes of C02. A more aggressive energy efficiency policy might deliver over two billion tonnes or close to three times the amount scheduled to be reduced under the Kyoto Protocol.

The International Energy Agency estimates that a total global switch to compact fluorescent bulbs would in 2010 deliver C02 savings of 470 million tonnes or slightly over half of the Kyoto reductions. We have to ask what the hurdles are -- if any -- to achieving such positive low cost change and set about decisively and swiftly to overcome them, if they exist at all.

I realize Kyoto is not our final goal, but the point here is the potential for harvesting carbon reductions from buildings is immense, and most of solutions are 1) with us already and 2) relatively low-cost to deploy. The challenge is largely changing practices. But as Achim notes, the hurdles in the building sector, unlike some other sectors, may not be very substantial.

Finally recognizing environmental threats to national security

Building on Dave's link yesterday: Last week, the Senate's number two Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel proposed a bill calling for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to assess the threat of climate to the United States and abroad.

Refreshingly, the bill requires a 30-year time horizon. Climate scientists will still find this window painfully small, but security analysts (and the rest of government, frankly) will recognize this as progress in comparison to the normal Washington policy timelines (a few years, or until the next election).

Makin’ eyes at each other

Al Gore recently gave his talk on global warming in Norway, to an audience that included one Ole Danbolt Mjoes. Mjoes, as you may know, is the head of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee — though he insisted he was attending as a private citizen. He said Gore’s message is "very important," and took part […]

All signs are positive

Solar power is going mainstream! So they have said, anyway, for about 30 years now. This time, however, there are good reasons to believe the hype. As Adam keeps reminding us, solar is incredibly popular — huge majorities favor it, and favor gov’t incentives to support it. Prices have been falling for years, orders are […]

Rich countries aren’t helping poor countries prepare

This article in the NYT should give reason for pause. The rich countries are preparing themselves to adapt to climate change, and doing very little to help the poor nations, which are the most vulnerable. I think environmentalists should take this issue very seriously since completely preventing climate change is unlikely to happen.

Helpful hints for global warming deniers

Many global warming deniers have moved on from denying the existence or human causes of global warming to denying it's worthwhile to do anything to mitigate it. "Burn all the fossil fuels you want", they suggest, "and adapt to the changes. Doing anything to reduce global warming is too expensive."

In a spirit of reconciliation, I thought I'd put forward some specific proposals to implement their approach.

On a planet with unchecked greenhouse warming, we would have a less predictable climate, warmer on average, but with unpredictable frosts and snowstorms -- some of them in places we currently don't get snow. Drought would alternate with floods. Insects would flourish on a warmer planet, and pests of all types would migrate. And of course storms would be worse than at present, as the average wind speed increased.

If a single new result clashes with the consensus, it’s wise to doubt it

Science is a collective, multi-layered process consisting of three steps. First is the individual scientist testing hypotheses according to the norms of their field. Second, the results of the individual scientist undergo peer-review and are published for the community to evaluate. At this point a result may be considered preliminary, but not proven.

Third, important claims are then re-tested in the "crucible of science" -- they are either reproduced by independent scientific groups or they have their implications tested to insure consistency with the existing body of scientific knowledge. After enough tests/reproductions, a consensus emerges that the idea is correct.

Not — yet, anyway

I know there are Gristmill readers with high hopes for algae-based biofuels. They will enjoy this piece in Popular Mechanics. Here’s the hope: Solix addresses these problems [algae’s finicky growing habits] by containing the algae in closed “photobioreactors” — triangular chambers made from sheets of polyethylene plastic (similar to a painter’s dropcloth) — and bubbling […]

May become U.S.’s first large offshore wind project

This just in: the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has weighed in on Cape Wind's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), saying that it "adequately and properly complies" with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The project can now advance to the state permitting process. I believe it is the first U.S. offshore wind project to have a certified final environmental impact document.

How high and how fast?

How high and fast will sea levels rise? An important piece (PDF) by Stefan Rahmstorf in Science concludes:

A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong warming scenarios cannot be ruled out, because all that such a rise would require is that the linear relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature, which was found to be valid in the 20th century, remains valid in the 21st century.