Archive for the ‘climate change’ Category

Reid Hints at Timeline for Climate Bill

February 20, 2009

The AP reports:

Saying it’s time to “take a whack” at climate change, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he plans to push for Senate action on global warming by the end of summer.

The Nevada Democrat in an interview with The Associated Press said the Senate will take up energy legislation in a couple of weeks “and then later this year, hopefully late this summer do the global warming part of it.” …

“We have to take a whack at it,” Reid said in a telephone interview late Thursday. He said failure to act “would be neglectful.”

White Christmas? Keep Dreaming

December 23, 2008

As an Atlanta native, I’ve only seen snow on Christmas one time in my life. I’ve moved further north, yet climate change will make a white Christmas an increasingly rare event:

The odds of a “white Christmas” in temperate parts of the northern hemisphere have diminished in the last century due to climate change and will likely decline further by 2100, climate and meteorology experts said.

More California Love

December 12, 2008

More great news out of the Golden Green State, via Science Insider:

California regulators yesterday laid out a plan to cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 15% over the next 12 years. That blueprint is the most ambitious greenhouse gas–reduction plan in the United States and could serve as a model for the incoming Obama Administration. The move is designed to combat the effects of the state’s fast-growing population, which is expected to cause by 2020 a spike in greenhouse emissions by 30% over 1990 levels. Among the plan’s hallmarks: producing at least one-third of all electricity from renewables, the most of any state.

Big Business: Cap-and-Trade Needed Now More Than Ever

November 19, 2008

banner_home1The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of 26 companies and environmental groups who support action to fight climate change, came out to reiterate their support for cap-and-trade legislation. The move in an important one because of the dodgy financial situation several member companies (i.e. the Big 3) are in:

U.S. business leaders including the troubled Big Three automakers offered a prescription on Tuesday for economic recovery and job creation: cap the carbon emissions that spur global warming. …
[USCAP] wants reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are 60 percent to 80 percent below current levels by 2050, a goal that is in line with what President-elect Barack Obama supports. …

“Some of the things you would have to do under climate legislation — becoming more efficient, putting significant dollars into new technology investments and new infrastructure — are all job-creation tools and revenue-producing tools,” [Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Climate Change] said.

“So rather than viewing the economic downturn as a reason not to do this, many in the business community are viewing this as a reason to do this,” she said.

New Ad Calls For 100% Clean Electricity

August 18, 2008

The new ad from Gore’s climate action group “We Can Solve It” is a good one:

World Cup Exclusion as Pollution Punishment? It Won’t Work

June 13, 2008

Finally, a story that connects my two passions: climate change and soccer.

International climate talks in Bonn, German are coming to an end “with recriminations about scant progress.” According to Reuters environment blog, “[S]ome delegates have been more agitated talking about the Euro 2008 soccer than about the threats to the planet.”

But Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists has a novel idea to get the delegates to focus:

If countries don’t comply [with emission targets] their teams shouldn’t be allowed to go to the World Cup.

Unfortunately, the plan is doomed from the start. Neither of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluters–the U.S. and China–are soccer nations. Meyer’s proposal would provide zero motivation for either one to reach their emission targets.

No doubt, this World Cup punishment would disproportionately hurt countries in Europe and Latin America, where the Beautiful Game is an obsession.

(Clearly I’m taking this idea WAY too seriously…)

The Goracle Speaks

June 3, 2008

“While it’s important that people change their light bulbs, it’s even more important that we change the laws.”

–Al Gore, discussing the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act now being debated in the Senate.

A San Francisco Treat

May 22, 2008

Carbon-emitting companies in San Francisco will soon have to pay to pollute, albeit not much. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Jumping ahead of state and federal regulators, the Bay Area air quality district became the first in the nation on Wednesday to impose fees on businesses that pump some of the highest levels of carbon dioxide into the air each year.

The 15-1 vote by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District sets the stage for 2,500 companies and agencies – from supermarkets to gas stations to power plants – to pay 4.4 cents for every metric ton of carbon dioxide they expel, beginning July 1. The top 10 companies combined would pay more than $820,000. The fee for a large share of businesses would be less than $1.

It’s a relatively small step, but it’s an important one. And it couldn’t come at a better time, as the Energy Department recently announced that total carbon dioxide emissions have increased 1.6 percent over the past year.

What’s really needed is a nation-wide mechanism–such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. Nibbling around the edges in certain cities and states just won’t get the job done.

This Climate Change Solution Sucks (Literally)

April 29, 2008

Most methods of combating climate change focus on eliminating greenhouse gas emissions on the front end–whether it be through greater efficiency or increased use of alternative energy.

But some scientists are developing ways to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide once it’s already in the atmosphere.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Here’s a simple solution to global warming: vacuum carbon dioxide out of the air.

Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Columbia University, said placing enough carbon filters around the planet could reel the world’s atmosphere back toward the 18th century, like a climatic time machine.

After a decade of work, his shower-sized prototype whirs away inside a Tucson warehouse, each day capturing about 10 pounds of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas as air wafts through it.

Only a few billion tons to go.

Though the device works, it doesn’t sound very practical:

In the battle against global warming, technology has long been seen as the ultimate savior, but Lackner’s machine is a clunky reminder of how distant that dream is.

He estimates that sucking up the current stream of emissions would require about 67 million boxcar-sized filters at a cost of trillions of dollars a year.

The orchards of filters would have to be powered by complexes of new nuclear plants, dams, solar farms or other clean-energy sources to avoid adding more pollution to the atmosphere.

The LA Times has a nice picture to give the reader a sense of what your average 22nd century “CO2-Buster” farm might look like:

By Professor Lackner’s estimates, to eliminate the necessary amount of CO2 “would require spreading out his machines over a land area the size of Arizona.”

World War III: The Fight to Halt Climate Change

April 18, 2008

As part of Time Magazine’s lengthy report, “How to Win the War on Global Warming,” reporter Bryan Walsh argues that the best comparison for the coming transition to a postcarbon world is World War II–a war during which we transformed our economy and our way of life to meet the challenge of defeating the Axis Powers:

What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound?

Forget precedents like the Manhattan Project, which developed the atom bomb, or the Apollo program that put men on the moon—single-focus programs both, however hard they were to pull off. Think instead of the overnight conversion of the World War II-era industrial sector into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000 planes, an effort that not only didn’t bankrupt the nation but instead made it rich and powerful beyond its imagining and—oh, yes—won the war in the process.

It’s important to compare the climate change fight to something more than just the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program. As great as these programs were, they didn’t involve an entire remaking of our economy to accomplish their goals. And it will take more than a few scientists holed up in New Mexico to bring carbon-free energy technologies to market. Perhaps the use of the World War metaphor will help us to summon the political will to act.

Here’s what Walsh says we as a nation need to do to win the coming World War:

  1. Set a price on carbon, most like through a cap-and-trade system.
  2. Mandate an “efficiency surge” throughout the economy.
  3. Create a viable, mass-scale energy technology that does not emit greenhouse gases. This step is perhaps the most difficult, but as Walsh points out, government can help: “A firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical. If Washington better allocated its own research-and-development dollars–as it did in the storied Apollo days–it could accelerate things even more.”

Give the piece, as well as the sections on the best green start-ups and websites, a full read.