Gristmill

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:

The Clean Air Act is President Obama's key to triggering cap-and-trade

The following is the third in a series of guest posts from the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal think tank that works on constitutional and environmental issues. It is written by online communications director Hannah McCrea and president Doug Kendall, who also help maintain CAC's blog, Warming Law. (Part I, Part II)

-----

A debate has been rumbling over whether it is possible for the EPA to establish a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions under the existing Clean Air Act. We'll discuss that debate in Part IV of this series. Setting aside that debate for a moment, the Act can still serve as an important catalyst for congressional action on climate change, if used effectively by the new Obama administration. Happily, Obama's all-star climate team seems to clearly understand this important truth.

The history here by now qualifies as environmental lore. Back in 1999, a group of concerned organizations, led by the tiny but bold International Center for Technology Assessment, petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA, arguing that the threat to human populations posed by climate change meant each of these chemicals fell within the Act's definition of an "air pollutant" that "endangers public health or welfare." After several years of legal prodding, and under Bush-appointed leadership, the EPA denied the petition. EPA claimed it did not have the authority to regulate GHGs and that, even if it did, it would defer regulation until climate science and policy, including foreign policy, became better developed.

Several U.S. states and environmental groups then challenged the EPA's decision in federal court, ultimately resulting in a landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling against the EPA issued in April 2007. The Court not only held that the EPA had the authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA, but that it was unjustified in delaying its action based on policy considerations not enumerated in the CAA itself.

The Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA [PDF] was an historic moment in the fight against climate change. With federal action at an alarming standstill, the highest court in the land informed former President Bush that his administration already had the power it needed to address GHG emissions on a national level. Specifically, the Court held that the EPA could apply its broad authority under the CAA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, and therefore did not need to wait for Congress to begin aggressively addressing climate change on a more comprehensive basis.

Canadian bishop challenges the 'moral legitimacy' of tar sands production

The Catholic bishop whose diocese extends over the tar sands has posted a scathing pastoral letter, "The Integrity of Creation and the Athabasca Oil Sands."

The letter by Bishop Luc Bouchard concludes, "even great financial gain does not justify serious harm to the environment," and "the present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oil sands cannot be morally justified." Equally powerful is who the letter is addressed to:

The critical points made in this letter are not directed to the working people of Fort McMurray but to oil company executives in Calgary and Houston, to government leaders in Edmonton and Ottawa, and to the general public whose excessive consumerist lifestyle drives the demand for oil.

We have met the enemy and he is us!

Other than sticking with the euphemism "oil sands" (see "Canada tries to tar-sandbag Obama on climate" the remarkably detailed and heavily footnoted letter is a brilliant piece of work dissecting what has been called the "biggest global warming crime ever seen."

Bishop Bouchard notes that "The environmental liabilities that result from the various steps in this process are significant and include":

• Destruction of the boreal forest eco-system
• Potential damage to the Athabasca water shed
• The release of greenhouse gases
• Heavy consumption of natural gas
• The creation of toxic tailings ponds

He writes at length on all five, and concludes

Any one of the above destructive effects provokes moral concern, but it is when the damaging effects are all added together that the moral legitimacy of oil sands production is challenged.

Here is what he says specifically about greenhouse gases:

Environmentalists go at it in Santa Barbara

Know what makes big, evil corporations happy? Watching environmentalists scratch each other's eyes out. Exhibit A: The coastal-drilling flap in Santa Barbara.

The basic story is this: California's State Lands Commission has just nixed a deal that would have allowed a Texas oil company to drill off the Santa Barbara coast. It would have been the first such drilling approved in the state since the late 1960s. The twist? Anti-oil activists had convinced the oil company to agree to shut down its four offshore drilling platforms by 2022, close a couple of processing plants, and give the county $1.5 million for low-emission buses (the hell?) -- all in exchange for fresh, juicy oil.

Gentlemen, start your pissing match!

Turkey's only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour

New nuclear power is going to be very expensive -- no matter where the plants are built. The most detailed and transparent recent cost study on the new generation of plants put the cost of power at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour -- triple current U.S. electricity rates (see "Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power").

Some have suggested that other countries will fare better -- in spite of Finland's nightmarish nuclear troubles (see "Satanic nukes? Finnish plant's cost overruns to $6.66 billion" and below). They should read the story in today's Today's Zaman, Turkey's largest English-language newspaper:

The only company bidding, the Russian-Turkish JSC Atomstroyexport-JSC Inter Rao Ues-Park Teknik joint venture, offered a price of 21.16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Current electricity prices in the country vary between 4 cents and 14 cents per kWh.

[Wholesale prices in Turkey are 7.9 cents per kWh.]

That gives new meaning to the word "turkey."

The company apparently offered a revised price "Immediately after the envelope was opened ... that better reflected current market prices" (i.e. the global recession and collapse in commodity prices). But another English language news source, Hurriyet Daily News, reports today:

Kansas legislature reviving last year’s coal fight

The Kansas legislature is once again attempting to pass a bill to get two new coal-fired power plants built in the southwestern part of the state, an attempt to override state environmental officials. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has gone head to head with Sunflower Electric Power and the legislature on this issue. The battle began in […]

President Obama should clear the way for state innovation on climate policy

The following is the second in a series of guest posts from the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal think tank that works on constitutional and environmental issues. It is written by online communications director Hannah McCrea and president Doug Kendall, who also help maintain CAC's blog, Warming Law. (Part I)

-----

In a 1932 dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote: "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens chose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

In the absence of federal action on climate change under the Bush administration, state and local governments have been taking advantage of this "happy incident" by passing measures that will reduce their contribution to global warming. Last September, ten northeastern states began auctioning allowances in the country's first mandatory regional cap-and-trade program, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), while several western states began working with Canadian provinces to set up a similar program under the Western Climate Initiative.

Signaling that the nexus of leadership in U.S. climate policy lies currently at the state level, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hosted the Governors' Global Climate Summit in November, ostensibly to facilitate a high-level meeting between international and American leaders that bypassed the federal government. Unsurprisingly, California has led state efforts in advancing climate policy, and is currently in the process of adopting the largest and most comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction program in the country. These initiatives signal that Justice Brandeis's vision of states as "laboratories" of regulation is very much alive in the realm of climate policy.

Of course, state innovation has been most visible (and most contentious) when it comes to auto emissions standards, as seen with this week's blockbuster news that President Barack Obama is ordering the EPA to revisit the California waiver denial. As Grist readers may recall, in 2004 California formally adopted the "Pavley standards," an aggressive enhancement of auto emissions standards that would require a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for new vehicles by 2016. Normally, states aren't allowed to depart from federal auto emissions standards in this way, but under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, California has special permission to set better-than-federal fuel economy standards, provided it obtains a waiver of preemption from the EPA. Once California gets a waiver, other states are allowed to adjust their own standards to match California's, creating a mechanism in which states gradually bring about a nation-wide reduction in auto emissions.

Email of the day

This just hit my inbox, from Gary T. Strasburg, DAF Civ, Chief, Environmental Public Affairs, US Air Force:

After a thorough review of project requirements and information submitted by a team of functional experts, the Air Force has determined proposals received for a coal-to-liquid synthetic fuel plant on Malmstrom AFB, Mont., are not viable and will no longer pursue possible development of a plant at the installation.