CC NEWS FOR FEB. 2016
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fifth Assessment Report was issued in sections, beginning in 2013 and concluding with the Summary Report in Nov. of 2014. In Dec. 2014 an excellent 16-minute video of the Summary was posted on YouTube.
NOTE: There is a short ad you can skip. The video is well worth watching.
Justin Gillis posted a very informative article in the NY Times on Nov. 28, 2015, which I just found. It’s called Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change, and has short answers to the following questions:
- How much is the planet heating up?
- How much trouble are we in?
- Is there anything I can do?
- What’s the optimistic scenario?
- Will reducing meat in my diet help the climate?
- What’s the worst-case scenario?
- Will a tech breakthrough help us?
- How much will the seas rise?
- Are the predictions reliable?
- Why do people question climate change?
- Is crazy weather tied to climate change?
- Will anyone benefit from global warming?
- Is there any reason for hope?
- How does agriculture affect climate change?
- Will the seas rise evenly across the planet?
- Is it really all about carbon?
In the answer to Question 13, Gillis writes, “What is still largely missing in all this are the voices of ordinary citizens. Because politicians have a hard time thinking beyond the next election, they tend to tackle hard problems only when the public rises up and demands it.”
NOTE: For those who want to learn more, the U.S. Global Change Research Program has produced a downloadable booklet, Climate Literacy - The Essential Principles of Climate Sciences. There is also a nice booklet for beginners by the Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Climate Change Evidence and Causes. The website also has a 1.7-minute video.
The Climate Reality Project posted a 12-minute video on Dec. 26 titled, Six Things You Can Do About Climate Change. The speaker is Paul Reale, the Climate Reality Leader. He writes, “The first three are choices you can make in your own life. And the second three will have an even bigger impact.”
Jared Green posted an article in The Dirt on Jan. 12 titled, New Map Shows the Impact of Sea Level Rise. He writes, “World leaders have begun to get serious about fighting climate change, but we still face the incredible risk of a rising sea in this century and far into the future. According to Climate Central, a research organization, a 4-degree Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) global temperature increase, which is our current path, could result in sea level rise that would submerge land where 470 – 760 million people now live. If the world’s governments actually meet the declared goal of the UN climate summit in Paris and reduce and draw down carbon emissions, keeping the world to a 2 Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase, 130 million would need to evacuate over coming decades. To understand how serious this could be, here’s some perspective: 4 million Syrians have fled their homeland since their civil war began in 2011, with 380,000 making their way to Europe this year. Imagine millions more on the move each year, all over the world, and the political, social, and environmental effects of this migration.”
NOTE: Paleoclimatologist David Archer at the University of Chicago is the author of a book titled, The Long Thaw - How Humans are Changing the Nest 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate (Princeton University Press, 2009). His Figure 17 on Page 138 shows the relationship between sea level and global average temperature for the geologic past - with a change of about 200 meters (650 feet) in sea level over a temperature range of 10 degrees C during the past 40 million years - corresponding to a sensitivity of about 10 m of sea level rise eventually for each 1 degree C increase in temperature (18 ft/degree F). The eventual sea level rise, however, is not nearly as important as the speed, which cannot be predicted well.
The NY Times for Jan. 19 has an editorial titled, Proof that a Price on Carbon Works. It said, “Lawmakers who oppose taking action to lower greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon often argue that doing so would hurt businesses and consumers. But the energy policies adopted by some American states and Canadian provinces demonstrate that those arguments are simply unfounded.
Around the world, nearly 40 nations, including the 28-member European Union, and many smaller jurisdictions are engaged in some form of carbon pricing. In this hemisphere, British Columbia, Quebec, California and nine Northeastern states have raised the cost of burning fossil fuels without damaging the economy. Alberta, Canada’s biggest oil and gas producer, and Ontario have said they will adopt similar policies.
Carbon pricing comes in two forms: a direct tax on emissions or a cap on emissions. British Columbia, for instance, has levied a tax on emissions from fuels like gasoline, natural gas and heating oil. California and Quebec, which are working together, place a ceiling on overall emissions and allow utilities, manufacturing plants, fuel distributors and others to buy and sell permits that entitle them to emit greenhouse gases. Like the cap itself, the number of permits decline over time, becoming more expensive.
Many economists regard carbon taxes as the simpler and more elegant solution, and cap-and-trade systems like the one that failed in the United States Congress was complex and hard to explain. But both systems effectively raise the price of using fossil fuels, which encourages utilities and other producers to generate more energy from low-carbon sources like solar, wind and nuclear power.”
“In Alberta, a new government announced in November that it would impose a tax of 30 Canadian dollars on most greenhouse gas emissions by the start of 2018. The province’s leaders also said they would phase out the use of coal power plants and impose caps on carbon and methane emissions from Alberta’s oil and gas industry.”
“In that context, China’s announcement last year that it would set up a national cap-and-trade system was hugely encouraging — the world’s largest emitter agreeing to tax itself to help solve a problem that, only a few years ago, it barely acknowledged. Yet Congress has refused to act even as it becomes clear that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is the most direct and cost-effective way to address climate change.”
NOTE: This is an excellent editorial that everyone interested in the future should read. It is a shame that so members of Congress, as well as a number of the leading candidates for President, are so backward on one of the most important issues facing the United States and the World.
The Washington Free Beacon posted an article by Adam Kredo on Jan. 19 titled, Pentagon Ordered to Address Climate Change. He writes, “A new directive issued by Pentagon leaders mandates that the agency work to “assess and manage risks associated with the impacts of climate change,” according to a copy of the Jan. 14 directive issued by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work.”
“Pentagon officials expect that the climate change effort will “help safeguard [the] U.S. economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources,” according to the directive.”
“The Pentagon told Congress in a report last year that it “sees climate change as a present security threat, not strictly a long-term risk.””
The NY Times for Jan. 21 has an article by Coral Davenport titled, Court Rejects a Bid to Block Coal Plant Regulations. It says, “In a significant victory for President Obama, a federal appeals panel on Thursday rejected an effort by 27 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups to block the administration’s signature regulation on emissions from coal-fired power plants while a lawsuit moves through the courts.The rule, issued last summer by the Environmental Protection Agency, is at the heart of Mr. Obama’s efforts to tackle climate change. It would require each state to significantly cut greenhouse gas pollution from electric power plants, the nation’s largest source of such emissions. Once fully in place, the regulation — which would cut emissions from existing power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 — could transform the electricity system, closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired plants and sharply increasing production of wind and solar powers.”
“But the 27 states, many of which have economies that rely on coal mining or coal-fired power, have sued the administration to kill the plan. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set June 2 to hear arguments in that case, although it is widely expected to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, most likely in 2017.”
“By rejecting the petition on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the court required states to move forward with plans to shut down polluting coal plants and build new wind and solar sources.”
Wendy Koch published an article in National Geographic on Jan. 22 titled, Why Solar and Wind are Thriving Despite Cheap Fossil Fuels. She reports that, while low oil price are rattling stock markets, investors remain bullish on solar and wind power and she gives three reasons why:
- Prices have fallen as government incentives have risen.
“Since 2008, according to U.S. government data, prices have plummeted 60 percent for large-scale solar, and 40 percent for wind.”
“Despite low natural gas prices, solar and wind accounted for 60 percent of new U.S. power capacity last year and will likely account for 70 percent this year, says Marlene Motyka, U.S. alternative energy leader at Deloitte.”
“Their economics could improve. “For renewables, particularly solar, substantive improvements in cost and efficiency are not only possible but likely,”…”
“Solar and wind got a huge boost in December, when the U.S. Congress renewed their tax credits for another five years. BNEF expects this extension will add an extra 20 gigawatts of solar power—equal to the total amount installed via solar panels in the U.S. prior to 2015.”
- Demand has expanded, driven partly by public policy.
“Countries are looking to renewable energy to meet the pledges they made as part of the UN climate accord last month in Paris.”
“Some, such as India, also see renewables as a way to reduce their severe air pollution. “
“Developing countries in Africa, where many people don’t have access to a central power grid, are pursuing solar projects as a quicker and less costly way to provide electricity.”
“States and local governments are pushing low-carbon or carbon-free energy alternatives as well. In the U.S., dozens of states now require they account for at least a certain amount of their electricity. On Thursday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the state will spend $5 billion over a decade to promote clean energy. Hawaii has pledged to get all its power from renewables by 2045, Vermont has pledged to get 75 percent by 2032 and California, 50 percent by 2030.”
- Corporate and Investor support is strong.
“States and local governments are pushing low-carbon or carbon-free energy alternatives as well. In the U.S., dozens of states now require they account for at least a certain amount of their electricity. On Thursday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the state will spend $5 billion over a decade to promote clean energy. Hawaii has pledged to get all its power from renewables by 2045, Vermont has pledged to get 75 percent by 2032 and California, 50 percent by 2030.”
On Jan. 24 the NY Times published an article by David Geller titled, When Invstors Aren’t Told About Climate Change. It was posted online the day before, under the title, S.E.C. Is Criticized for Lax Enforcement of Climate Risk Disclosure. Geller wrote, “As recently as 2011, shares in Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest private sector coal company, traded at the equivalent of $1,000. Today, they hover around $4 each. Over that time, investors who held the stock lost millions.
Peabody, like other coal companies, has been hammered as cheap natural gas erodes the demand for coal. But concerns about climate change are also an issue for the company as customers and investors turn away from fossil fuels.
Peabody saw this coming. Even as the company privately projected that coal demand would slump and prices would fall, it withheld this information from investors. Instead, Peabody said in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it was not possible to know how changing attitudes toward climate change would affect its business.
Peabody’s double talk was revealed as part of a two-year investigation by the New York attorney general. In a settlement in November, Peabody agreed that it would disclose more about climate change risks in its regular filings with the S.E.C.”
“Last April, an alliance of 62 institutional investors wrote a letter to the S.E.C. calling for greater scrutiny of climate-related disclosures from energy companies in particular.
“We are concerned that oil and gas companies are not disclosing sufficient information about several converging factors that, together, will profoundly affect the economics of the industry,” wrote the investors, which included Calpers, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System; the Connecticut state investment fund; and Calvert Investments.”
NOTE: Most scientists agree that most of the fossil fuels now in the ground will need to remain there if we are to avoid catastrophic climate disruption. This means that companies that now own them are going to have trillions of dollars of stranded assets. The sooner that major investors realize this and change their investments accordingly, the better it will be for all of us.
Nature Climate Change posted an article by Alexander McDonald et al. on Jan. 25, titled Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions.
Here is the abstract: “Carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation are a major cause of anthropogenic climate change. The deployment of wind and solar power reduces these emissions, but is subject to the variability of the weather. In the present study, we calculate the cost-optimized configuration of variable electrical power generators using weather data with high spatial (13-km) and temporal (60-min) resolution over the contiguous US. Our results show that when using future anticipated costs for wind and solar, carbon dioxide emissions from the US electricity sector can be reduced by up to 80% relative to 1990 levels, without an increase in the levelized cost of electricity. (emphasis added) The reductions are possible with current technologies and without electrical storage. Wind and solar power increase their share of electricity production as the system grows to encompass large-scale weather patterns. This reduction in carbon emissions is achieved by moving away from a regionally divided electricity sector to a national system enabled by high-voltage direct-current transmission.”
NOTE: The abstract is accompanied by some great colored maps showing the wind and soar resources across the lower-48 states.
Aura Bogado posted a short article on Grist on Jan. 26 titled, What do racism and poverty have to do with pollution and climate change, with a great 3.3 minute video titled, Environmental Justice.
NOTE: Grist uses humor to address some of the most serious social justice issues of our time.
There is another article posted on Grist, this one by Patrick Mazza on Jan. 27, titled, Why I blocked and oil train - and why you should engage in civil disobedience too. He wrote,
“When the Delta 5 sat in front of an oil train at BNSF Delta Yard in Everett, Wash., on Sept. 2, 2014, we did not expect to stop climate disruption or dangerous fossil fuel shipments. By ourselves, that is.
What we did expect was that our act of civil disobedience, positioning ourselves on a tripod and blocking an oil train, would help generate a rising crescendo of actions that could spur the public pressure needed to address those deadly threats. For many years, big money and corporate power have blocked large-scale climate action, so we believe that the shock, dissonance, and friction of nonviolent civil disobedience are needed to make the political system work again.” During the ensuing trial,
“Climate civil disobedience veteran Tim DeChristopher, who live-tweeted the event through the week, later set the trial in perspective. “In an American courtroom, activists were presenting the full case for how serious the climate crisis is, how much our government has entirely failed to address that crisis, and how powerful people can be when they step up to their responsibility to stand in the way of the fossil fuel industry.”
“It was one of the most coherent and comprehensive cases for climate action that I’ve seen anywhere,” DeChristopher continued. “It’s a tremendous resource for future activists taking their case to court.””
“As he watched our trial, DeChristopher had an epiphany about what makes civil disobedience uniquely necessary — what it does “that other forms of activism do not do, and why it has played such a central role in so many social movements.” As he told a post-trial gathering, “The intent of civil disobedience is to arouse the conscience of a community in order to build the kind of public pressure that is necessary to resist the corporate control of our government.” The essential act of nonviolent civil disobedience is deliberately placing one’s self in a vulnerable position. “That vulnerability rattles people out of their everyday lives,” which is just what is needed in “our apathetic, disengaged society. It does something entirely unique, and that answers the question of no legal alternatives.”
The response of the jurors to our case is strong evidence for DeChristopher’s insight. In our appeal, we will press the case for the unique and necessary role of civil disobedience in spurring the public conscience to move on climate and fossil fuel threats.”
“We face a monumental political challenge of arousing the world to act in a very few years. But it is more than a political challenge. It is a moral-spiritual challenge that will require a revolution in values. We must move beyond mere intellectual and political approaches to a frankly spiritual activism, putting our bodies on the line, taking risks, making ourselves vulnerable, being prepared to make sacrifices. This, and only this, will move people to overcome the dark forces controlling the political system, enabling us to make the rapid changes we must to leave a world with which our children can cope.
It is up to us. The Delta 5 never expected to do it alone. We need you. Take action now. Cross the line. Disobey the law to follow a higher necessity. Do it soon. We don’t have much time left.”
NOTE: Tim DeChristopher responded to a moral imperative to use civil disobedience when he interfered with an auction of federal lands for oil and gas development in 2008. He was a member of the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, a church I first attended 60 years ago when I was 17. He and the Delta 5 were responding to the call answered by Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. When will it be our turn to cross the line?
On Jan. 29 the NY TImes published an Op-Ed by Margo Oge titled, The Problem with the Ethanol Mandate That Iowa Loves. Iowans love the federal ethanol mandate because Iowa is the largest American producer of corn and about half of the crop goes into billions of gallons of ethanol that get mixed into gasoline. “Ethanol thrives because of the volume-based approach of the mandate, which specifies that a growing percentage of various renewable fuels must be mixed into gasoline every year until 2022.
But that approach has stifled innovation and, if its track record to date is any indication, biofuels will not be a major player in meeting our 2050 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks
What we should be talking about is a performance-based approach to developing gasoline substitutes that will reduce emissions. We’ve had much greater success using this approach and allowing the market to decide which technology works best to meet a target set by the government.
For instance, when the Environmental Protection Agency set 2025 limits for greenhouse gas emissions for cars at half of 2008 levels, automakers were given flexibility on how to make that happen. Some companies are investing heavily in electric vehicles; others are focusing on hybrids and fuel cells. So far, all have met their interim goals”.
“The United States needs to reduce carbon pollution from cars and trucks by 80 percent by 2050. Advances in propulsion technology alone will not be enough to meet that goal. Passenger cars will have to not only go farther on less fuel, but also travel those miles on lower-carbon fuel.”
Melissa Lott posted an article in Scientific American on Feb. 4 titled, 2015 Was a Record-Setting Year for Wind, Part 2: % Generation. In 2015 Denmark set a new record for the percentage of national electricity produced by wind power - 42%. Denmark also holds the previous record of 39% in 2014. The percentage of Danish electrical demand generated by wind has more than doubled in the past 10 years. Good for Denmark!
On Feb. 1 Joe Romm posted an article in ClimateProgress titled, Why The Renewables Revolution Is Now Unstoppable. He writes, ‘Once upon a time, people imagined that replacing fossil fuels with renewables like solar and wind would jeopardize the electric grid’s reliability. Then along came some major countries who showed that it didn’t, and that there really are no limits to renewable integration. The result was explained last year in a Bloomberg Business piece aptly headlined, “Germany Proves Life With Less Fossil Fuel Getting Easier”: “Germany experiences just 15 minutes a year of outages, compared with 68 minutes in France and more than four hours in Poland.”
Germany is the most powerful economy on the planet to depend so much on renewable electricity — renewables currently deliver 28 percent of Germany’s total grid power (and up to 40 percent in some regions). The United States has a very long way to go to hit that level, by which time there will be an even wider range of cost-effective strategies to deal with much higher levels of renewables.
Part One of this series explained why the International Energy Agency now projects that, for the planet as a whole, “Driven by continued policy support, renewables account for half of additional global generation, overtaking coal around 2030 to become the largest power source.” Part Two explained why renewables are going to grow so quickly in this country over the next couple of decades, especially wind and solar power, at the expense of both coal and natural gas.
In this post I’ll discuss why it is turning out to be less challenging than expected to incorporate more and more renewables into the electric grid — and to handle periods of time when demand is high but the wind isn’t blowing and/or the sun isn’t shining.”
“One very basic strategy is an improved electricity transmission system. After all, “the sun is shining or winds are blowing somewhere across the United States all of the time,” as NOAA explained in a news release for a new analysis. Researchers concluded that “with improvements in transmission infrastructure, weather-driven renewable resources could supply most of the nation’s electricity at costs similar to today’s.” According to Alexander MacDonald, co-lead author and recently retired director of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, “Our research shows a transition to a reliable, low-carbon, electrical generation and transmission system can be accomplished with commercially available technology and within 15 years.”
In February the The Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) announced that Washington, DC, plans to have a tax on fuels sold in the District, starting at $20 per ton of CO2 produced when they are burned, increasing at $10/ton per year, and refunding 100% of the revenue with quarterly checks to all District residents on an equal per capita basis. You can read about it at http://chesapeakeclimate.org/dc-federal/a-dc-carbon-tax-for-clean-energy-and-a-fair-economy. DC has also pledged to reduce GHG emissions by 50% by 2032 (no baseline year given). An accompanying Fact Sheet gives a list of other carbon price and dividend proposals at city, state and provincial (Canada) levels.
NOTE; It seems like a lot of people are getting on board with the idea of a price on carbon as a way to reduce environmental damage, improve public health, and boost the economy.
On Feb. 4 James McGarry also posted an article in CCAN titled, Maryland Legislators Move Forward Major Climate Bill. He wrote, “The seas are rising, and we are rising to the challenge. That is the simple message that lies at the heart of what we do here at CCAN. That was the message of over 200 Marylanders this summer who attended and testified before the Maryland Commission on Climate Change calling for deep and science-based cuts in climate-warming emissions. That was the message of over 85 Maryland congregations that rose up climate justice from the pulpit last fall. And now, finally, Maryland leaders have heard our call and have put forward a bill to meet the scale of the climate crisis. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2016 (SB 323/HB 610), sponsored by Delegate Kumar Barve and Senator Paul Pinsky, would renew Maryland’s statewide commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, and extend that goal to achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.”
On Feb. 5 David Roberts posted an article on Vox Energy and Environment titled, If you thought solar was going to hurt utilities, get a load of solar+storage. He writes, “Residential solar+storage ... refers to a) an array of rooftop solar panels connected to b) some means of energy storage, usually a battery or batteries, controlled by c) smart software that enables the system to communicate with the grid.
Adding storage to solar radically expands its value — the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The ability to store energy gives the solar homeowner more control over her energy; she can shift her time of use, storing power when it's cheap and selling it when it's more expensive.”
NOTE: The above article has a lot of useful information and is well worth reading.
On Feb. 5 Nathan Bomey posted an article on USA Today titled, Obama’s $10 oil tax proposal would cost motorists. He wrote, “Consumers will likely pay the price for President Obama's proposed $10 tax per-barrel of oil.” Patrick DeHaan, a senior petroleum analyst said, "Something like this would trickle down and be a $10 per barrel tax on motorists. This is not something oil companies are going to absorb.”
“Of course, at a nationwide average of $1.77 per gallon on Thursday, gasoline is already cheap compared to historic highs. Environmentalists say a small price increase is worth to help fight climate change and spur innovation”.
“DeHaan called it a "bold" proposal that would be the most significant change in energy policy in recent memory.
Oil stock investors did not appear to be fazed when the news hit Thursday afternoon. Shares of Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell all closed up for the day.”
NOTE: According to the Energy Information Administration, refineries in the United States produced an average of about 12 gallons of diesel fuel and 19 gallons of gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil in 2014. According to the EIA, about 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol, and about 22.4 pounds by burning a gallon of diesel fuel. If we assume that burning transportation fuels produces about 800 pounds (0.4 short tons) of CO2 per barrel of crude oil used to produce them, then Obama’s proposed $10 a barrel tax amounts to a tax of about $25 per ton of CO2 - similar to the current $30 Canadian per tonne tax on carbon emissions in British Columbia.
On Feb. 5 Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. posted a report by Elizabeth Stanton et al. titled, The RGGI Opportunity: RGGI as the Electric Sector Compliance Tool to Achieve 2030 State Climate Targets. The Executive Summary says: “For the past seven years, nine northeastern states have led the country in addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector. Working together under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont have already cut electric-sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 percent compared to their 1990 levels and have created a framework to drive deeper electric sector reductions in the future. RGGI’s electric sector carbon cap is complemented by individual state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and energy efficiency resource standards (EERS) that are further helping to transform power generation in the region. The nine RGGI states have also led the country in establishing longer-term economy-wide climate goals, clustering around a 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050.” (emphasis added)
“Synapse evaluated the most cost-effective approaches for states to meet their 2030 climate goals, while avoiding investments during this time frame that would hinder compliance with states’ longer-term 2050 goals. This least-cost strategy achieves a 40 percent CO2 emission reduction in the nine states by 2030 by lowering the RGGI cap on electric sector emissions from 78 million short tons in 2020 to 19 million short tons in 2030, and adding a new emission reduction measure in the transportation sector.”
The study proposed that 2/3 of the total CO2 emission reductions come from the electric sector, with major contributions from improved efficiency, and from wind and solar power sources. In the transportation sector 28, million electric vehicles go on the road by 2030 with cleaner energy sources. The 40% emissions reduction policy saves customers $5.2 billion in 2030 and generates nearly 50,000 jobs a year.
NOTE: Appendix E shows state emission reduction targets for the nine states in the RGGI region. Delaware appears to have the weakest targets in the group, with a 2030 target of reducing economy-wide emissions by only 30% (relative to 2008). It is also the only state in the group to have no target for 2050; the others are all 80-90%. (emphasis added)
Jeremy Martin posted a blog on Feb. 9 for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) titled, 7 Facts You Should Know About Gasoline, from our Brand New Report… Here are some of the key findings. The efficiency of cars has increased about 20% over the past 10 years, but the energy required to refine the dirtier crude oils used to make the gasoline has increased by about 30% over the same period. The carbon emissions of extracting and refining crude oils can vary from 50 kgCO2e/barrel for light crude to over 250 for tar sands crude. (Burning gasoline produces about 20 lbs of CO2/gallon or about 365 kgCO2/barrel of crude oil.) The UCS has a plan for cutting the oil used in half by 2035. The report that Martin mentions, Fueling a Clean Transportation Future (2016) and its Executive Summary can be downloaded at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/clean-fuels/transportation-fuels-future#.Vr9daUui1g0.
The NY Times for Feb. 11 posted an article by John Schwartz titled, Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Science is Found Lacking. He wrote:
“Most science teachers in the United States spend some time on climate change in their courses, but their insufficient grasp of the science as well as political factors “may hinder effective teaching,” according to a nationwide survey of the profession.
The survey, described in the current issue of the journal Science, found that teachers spent little time on the topic — just one to two hours on average over an academic year.”
“Many teachers also provide misinformation about climate change, the survey found. The evidence that human activity is a major cause of recent climate change is overwhelming, but 30 percent of the 1,500 teachers surveyed said they emphasized that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes,” while 12 percent said they did not emphasize human causes. Half of that 12 percent said they did not discuss any causes at all.”
“More than 95 percent of climate scientists agree that recent global warming is caused mostly by human activity, but only 30 percent of middle schoolteachers and 45 percent of high school teachers correctly identified the degree of consensus as 81 percent to 100 percent.”
NOTE: The article pointed out that climate science is developing so rapidly that most teachers didn’t learn much of what is now known when they were in college, and that continuing teacher education is essential to keep up to date.
ClimateTruth.org is getting constituents from the states from which presidential candidates come to confront the candidates with the question of what they would do to address climate change. An example is a Cuban-American (Maribel Balbin) who lost everything when she immigrated to southern Florida 40 years ago. She tried to get Marco Rubio to give a straight answer to a question about what he would do to prevent her losing her home to sea level rise. His answer, as near as I can tell (Yo no hablo espanol.), was that he would do nothing. (He doesn’t believe in climate science.)
The Washington Post for Feb. 15 has an article by Anna Hirtenstein titled, Brightest ideas to absorb climate pollution seen as too risky. She writes, “Phil Williamson, a scientist at the University of East Anglia, examined the ecological effect of a number of proposed methods known as geoengineering and concluded in a paper that none would work at a large scale without huge risks for the planet.
“We have to concentrate on reducing emissions,” Williamson said in a phone interview. “We could cool the world in all sorts of weird and wacky ways that seem like they could be technically possible, but whether they will actually work on a large scale is a big question, and what kind of disruptions they would cause is another.”
Geoengineering long has captured the attention of researchers looking for an easy way to suck up the fossil-fuel emissions blamed for global warming. Models for predicting the long-term effect of humans on the planet often contain the assumption that it will be possible to eliminate large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
Joe Romm has an article in the Feb. 17 issue of ClimateProgress titled, Methane Leaks Erase Climate Benefit Of Fracked Gas, Countless Studies Find. The problem is that fracking for natural gas and its increasing use are causing much more leakage than the EPA was told by the fracking companies. Methane, the principle component of natural gas, is such a powerful GHG, that even though it produces less CO2 than coal for a given amount of energy, that advantage is overwhelmed by the gas leaked. The high leakage rates are shown by satellite data and numerous studies. Romm writes, “The good news is that renewables are ready to handle the job of running a modern economy, so we don’t need to rely on natural gas as a “bridge” to a carbon-free future. The bad news is that many people still tout the supposed climate benefits of the fracking revolution — despite a paucity of observations and analysis to support that view and a plethora of data and research undermining it.” He goes on to provide a large number of references to recent studies.
Climate Central published an article on Feb. 22 by John Upton titled, Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise.
The NY TImes posted an article on Feb. 22 by Eduardo Porter titled, Next Supreme Court Justice Will Be Crucial to Climate Change. He wrote:
“Just two months have passed since the world’s top diplomats cobbled together the best plan we’ve ever had to start curbing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Yet already the Supreme Court of the United States said no, delaying much of the Obama administration’s strategy to deliver America’s contribution to the collective effort.
The White House claims it will prevail, assuring a fidgety international community it will deliver on the promises made at the climate meeting in Paris in December. Those commitments proved critical to keeping the diplomacy on track and ultimately producing a deal among more than 185 countries representing more than 98 percent of global emissions.
And yet the Supreme Court’s temporary stay of the administration’s Clean Power Plan — the last decision of global consequence of the right-leaning court on which Justice Antonin Scalia had sat since the Reagan administration — underscores just how far the United States remains from its climate goals.”
“Still, the Supreme Court’s decision last week to delay the plan — until the United States Court of Appeals in Washington decides on the merits of a challenge by 27 mostly Republican-governed states — underscores just how politically vulnerable the United States’ promises truly are. Because for all the administration’s claims that it can deliver on its commitments regardless, the fact remains that even under the most optimistic outlook — if the Supreme Court’s stay were to melt away and the Power Plan were to work impeccably — current policies do not get us there.” (emphasis added)
The following items are from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), Carol Werner, Executive Director. Past issues of its newsletter are posted on its website under "publications"
at http://www.eesi.org/publications/Newsletters/CCNews/ccnews.htm
at http://www.eesi.org/publications/Newsletters/CCNews/ccnews.htm
EESI’s newsletter is intended for all interested parties, particularly the policymaker community.
On January 22, the Department of Interior released a proposal to update its 30-year-old regulations for methane venting, flaring and leaks from oil and gas operations on public and native lands and put them in line with the current state of technology in the sector. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere 84 times more than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period. The draft regulation would cut 164,000-169,000 tons of methane annually, equivalent to the emissions from 860,000-890,000 vehicles, at a cost to the industry of $125-$161 million. Oil and natural gas production on public and native lands is a major business, accounting for five percent of U.S. oil supply and 11 percent of U.S. natural gas supply. The new regulation would cut the estimated 375 billion cubic feet of natural gas that is wasted in oil and gas production, a $23 million annual missed opportunity for royalties for taxpayers.
For more information see:
NOTE: The average cost to the industry of cutting methane emissions under the regulation will be about $860 per ton of methane.
On January 19, New York City's proposed project to build a new storm protection system around Lower Manhattan won $176 million in federal funding from the National Disaster Resilience Competition held by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to the New York Times, the fund will be added to $100 million earmarked by Mayor de Blasio and other city officials last August. The project calls for strengthening a shoreline in ways that simultaneously protect the city and can be enjoyed for recreational purposes. "With the risks of climate change only growing, the city continues to act," said New York City spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick. New York City has been actively encouraging investment in resilience since Hurricane Sandy, which caused huge economic losses back in 2012.
For more information see:
On January 19, official data from the Chinese government showed that in 2015 China's coal production dropped 3.5 percent, coal-powered electricity generation dropped 2.8 percent, and power generation from all sources fell 0.2 percent, the first such drop in 50 years. An analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance indicated that the country's carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion dropped two percent in 2015 due to decreased fossil fuel use, equivalent to 144.9 million metric tons of CO2. Li Junfeng, director general at a Chinese think tank, commented, "This trend may continue for three to five years or longer." China, the world's biggest consumer of energy, has made a pledge to cap its emissions by 2030. The country is looking to continue cutting coal production, while investing heavily in renewable energy such as hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.
For more information see:
On January 19, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) released its 19th survey of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) around the world, finding that climate change does not top a list of threats that CEOs are most concerned about. Instead, the 1,400 CEOs surveyed said they thought over-regulation was the number one threat to business, followed by geopolitical uncertainty and key threats such as cyberattacks. Climate change and environmental damage made the list, but only half the surveyed CEOs were very concerned about them.
In related news, two separate surveys done by the World Economic Forum, and released last week on January 14, found differing levels of concern about climate change among business leaders and experts in economics, academics and civil society. The business leader report surveyed 13,000 business leaders and found that no CEOs thought climate change was the number one threat or risk to their business; in contrast, the 750 experts polled said extreme weather caused by climate change was the greatest threat to the global economy in the coming year.
For more information see:
On January 20, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced that 2015 was the world's warmest year since records began in 1880. The average land and ocean surface temperature was 1.62 degrees above the 20th century average in 2015. Although El Nino has released a considerable amount of heat into the atmosphere from the Pacific Ocean, scientists say that a majority of last year's heat was caused by long-term global warming from the burning of fossil fuels. The last 35 years have seen the most warming, with 15 of the 16 warmest years occurring after 2001. NOAA and NASA said overall, the Earth was 1.62 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celius) warmer than the 20th century average. This is significant because during the Paris climate conference, world leaders stated that they would do their best to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
For more information see:
On January 18, Nature published a study finding that oceans, which already absorb 90-95 percent of anthropogenic warming, have doubled the rate of absorption of human-caused heat energy since 1997. The last 20 years account for half of the total worldwide ocean heat absorption since 1865, the year that fossil fuels started being used widely. Over a third of the increase in heat absorption in the oceans during the past two decades was at depths past 700 meters - an area rarely studied by scientists, revealing that heat is penetrating into deeper ocean layers. "These findings have potentially serious consequences for life in the oceans as well as for patterns of ocean circulation, storm tracks and storm intensity," said Jane Lubchenco, former administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
For more information see:
On January 25, a new study was published in Nature finding that recent record-breaking warm years are extremely likely to have been caused by anthropogenic climate change. The study, by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), found that without human burning of fossil fuels, there is a very small chance that 13 out of the 15 warmest years on record would have all occurred after the year 2000. Using statistical analysis in combination with observational data and advanced climate computer models, scientists found that the odds of this warming occurring in the absence of human activity to be between one in 5,000 and one in 170,000. "Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next," stated lead author Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State.
For more information see:
On January 25, a study in Nature Climate Change found that updating and consolidating regional power grids into a national grid with high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) power lines could significantly boost the amount of renewable energy on the grid without the use of energy storage. Using existing technology to update the grid would allow utilities to cut up to 80 percent of the electricity sector's carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels, by 2030. Renewable energy such as solar and wind is intermittent, only generating power when the wind blows or the sun shines. While storing extra energy is the most commonly proposed solution to renewable energy's intermittency, the researchers found that creating a national HVDC grid would also smooth out that intermittency as power could move rapidly to where it is needed - while reducing the average cost of electricity.
For more information see:
On January 27, Physicians Scientists & Engineers (PSE) published a report finding that the Clean Power Plan must consider upstream emissions of methane from natural gas operations, or risk falling far short of achieving its target of a 32 percent reduction in power sector carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that half of the emissions reductions in the Clean Power Plan will come from shifting coal to natural gas power generation between 2005 and 2013. However, natural gas projects release methane, a potent greenhouse gas 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, and the study stated that EPA underestimates these emissions, potentially offsetting a significant proportion of the emissions reductions realized by reducing coal use. The study says EPA must use accurate estimates to ensure it does not erode the Clean Power Plan's climate benefits.
For more information see:
On January 19, official data from the Chinese government showed that in 2015 China's coal production dropped 3.5 percent, coal-powered electricity generation dropped 2.8 percent, and power generation from all sources fell 0.2 percent, the first such drop in 50 years. An analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance indicated that the country's carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion dropped two percent in 2015 due to decreased fossil fuel use, equivalent to 144.9 million metric tons of CO2. Li Junfeng, director general at a Chinese think tank, commented, "This trend may continue for three to five years or longer." China, the world's biggest consumer of energy, has made a pledge to cap its emissions by 2030. The country is looking to continue cutting coal production, while investing heavily in renewable energy such as hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.
For more information see:
Survey of CEOs Released at World Economic Forum Shows Climate Change Not Top Concern
On January 19, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) released its 19th survey of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) around the world, finding that climate change does not top a list of threats that CEOs are most concerned about. Instead, the 1,400 CEOs surveyed said they thought over-regulation was the number one threat to business, followed by geopolitical uncertainty and key threats such as cyberattacks. Climate change and environmental damage made the list, but only half the surveyed CEOs were very concerned about them.
In related news, two separate surveys done by the World Economic Forum, and released last week on January 14, found differing levels of concern about climate change among business leaders and experts in economics, academics and civil society. The business leader report surveyed 13,000 business leaders and found that no CEOs thought climate change was the number one threat or risk to their business; in contrast, the 750 experts polled said extreme weather caused by climate change was the greatest threat to the global economy in the coming year.
For more information see:
Leonard DiCaprio to Donate $15 Million to Environment
On January 19, Leonard DiCaprio announced at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland that he would donate $15 million through his foundation to reduce the use of fossil fuels, protect rainforests, and prevent overfishing. DiCaprio also received a Crystal Award at WEF for "improving the state of the world." DiCaprio commented, "Professor Mark Jacobson and a team of researchers at Stanford University have proven that we can meet the world's total energy demand using existing renewable technology by 2050. (empnasis added) This transition is not only the right thing for our world, it makes clear economic sense and is possible within our lifetime."
For more information see:
2015 Was Hottest Year on Record
On January 20, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced that 2015 was the world's warmest year since records began in 1880. The average land and ocean surface temperature was 1.62 degrees above the 20th century average in 2015. Although El Nino has released a considerable amount of heat into the atmosphere from the Pacific Ocean, scientists say that a majority of last year's heat was caused by long-term global warming from the burning of fossil fuels. The last 35 years have seen the most warming, with 15 of the 16 warmest years occurring after 2001. NOAA and NASA said overall, the Earth was 1.62 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celius) warmer than the 20th century average. This is significant because during the Paris climate conference, world leaders stated that they would do their best to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
For more information see:
Oceans Are Heating Fast from Climate Change
On January 18, Nature published a study finding that oceans, which already absorb 90-95 percent of anthropogenic warming, have doubled the rate of absorption of human-caused heat energy since 1997. The last 20 years account for half of the total worldwide ocean heat absorption since 1865, the year that fossil fuels started being used widely. Over a third of the increase in heat absorption in the oceans during the past two decades was at depths past 700 meters - an area rarely studied by scientists, revealing that heat is penetrating into deeper ocean layers. "These findings have potentially serious consequences for life in the oceans as well as for patterns of ocean circulation, storm tracks and storm intensity," said Jane Lubchenco, former administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
For more information see:
On January 17, a joint United States and Europe satellite to measure global sea levels, the Jason-3 mission, was launched. It works by bouncing radar signals off the water to measure the height of the ocean surface with a 1-1.3 inch accuracy level. This data will be important in helping scientists monitor rising sea levels from global climate change, and will also allow scientists to record the direction and speed of ocean currents, with the aim of assisting hurricane forecasts. The Jason-3 satellite is the fourth joint mission between Europe and the United States to measure sea levels around the world. Jason-3 will continue the data set begun in 1992 by the TOPEX/Poseidon mission.
For more information see:
On January 25, a new study was published in Nature finding that recent record-breaking warm years are extremely likely to have been caused by anthropogenic climate change. The study, by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), found that without human burning of fossil fuels, there is a very small chance that 13 out of the 15 warmest years on record would have all occurred after the year 2000. Using statistical analysis in combination with observational data and advanced climate computer models, scientists found that the odds of this warming occurring in the absence of human activity to be between one in 5,000 and one in 170,000. "Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next," stated lead author Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State.
For more information see:
On January 25, a study in Nature Climate Change found that updating and consolidating regional power grids into a national grid with high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) power lines could significantly boost the amount of renewable energy on the grid without the use of energy storage. Using existing technology to update the grid would allow utilities to cut up to 80 percent of the electricity sector's carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels, by 2030. Renewable energy such as solar and wind is intermittent, only generating power when the wind blows or the sun shines. While storing extra energy is the most commonly proposed solution to renewable energy's intermittency, the researchers found that creating a national HVDC grid would also smooth out that intermittency as power could move rapidly to where it is needed - while reducing the average cost of electricity.
For more information see:
NOTE: Building a new national high-voltage direct current power grid sounds like a great idea - especially if it can cut carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector 80% by 2030.
On January 27, Physicians Scientists & Engineers (PSE) published a report finding that the Clean Power Plan must consider upstream emissions of methane from natural gas operations, or risk falling far short of achieving its target of a 32 percent reduction in power sector carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that half of the emissions reductions in the Clean Power Plan will come from shifting coal to natural gas power generation between 2005 and 2013. However, natural gas projects release methane, a potent greenhouse gas 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, and the study stated that EPA underestimates these emissions, potentially offsetting a significant proportion of the emissions reductions realized by reducing coal use. The study says EPA must use accurate estimates to ensure it does not erode the Clean Power Plan's climate benefits.
For more information see:
On February 4, the White House indicated that President Obama will ask for a $10/barrel tax on oil in his fiscal year 2017 budget request of Congress, which will be released on Tuesday, February 9th. The tax would help fund $32.4 billion in upgrades to transportation infrastructure, public transportation, urban planning and clean vehicle research to create a "21st century clean transportation system." In a statement, the White House said, "By placing a fee on oil, the President's plan creates a clear incentive for private sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invests in clean energy technologies that will power our future." The plan is not likely to get far in the Republican-controlled Congress, where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise have both already spoken against it.
For more information see:
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R) and Rep. Theodore Deutch (D), both representing Florida districts, filed a petition with the Committee on House Administration to create a new bipartisan group, the Climate Solutions Caucus. According to the petition, the caucus will "educate members on economically-viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation's economy, security, infrastructure, agriculture, water supply, and public safety." Rep. Curbelo said, "I am proud to serve as a co-chair of the Climate Solutions Caucus, the first bipartisan caucus to address climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. By exploring policy options that address the impacts of a changing climate we can effectively mitigate the inevitable effects it will have on our environment, as well as our economy." Rep. Curbelo was one of 11 Republicans who co-sponsored H. Res 424, a September resolution calling for Congressional action to address the impacts of climate change. Florida, with its low-lying lands and ample coastlines, is particularly at risk from climate change.
For more information see:
RGGI Stakeholders Ask for More Ambitious Carbon Reduction Target
On February 2, stakeholders in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon-trading market with nine participating states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, requested that the market raise its common emissions reduction goal after 2020. The current goal is an emissions limit of 78 million tons in 2030, more ambitious than the states are collectively required to meet under the Clean Power Plan, a federal regulation on carbon emissions. In light of the recent Paris United Nations agreement on climate change, RGGI stakeholders called for a 40 million ton cap by 2030.
For more information see:
On February 3, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released the first multispecies assessment of how vulnerable certain U.S. marine species are to climate change. The assessment looked at the impacts on 82 species living in the northwest Atlantic Ocean, including winter flounder, Atlantic salmon, bay scallops, and lobster, and found that 80 percent of the surveyed species will likely migrate from their usual habitats. Researchers found that half the evaluated species are "highly" or "very highly" vulnerable to climate change, likely leading to a decline in their reproductive abilities and population numbers. Species that migrate between salt and fresh water (such as salmon and sturgeon), and those that live on the ocean floor (such as lobsters, scallops, and clams) are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
For more information see:
On February 9, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to place a temporary stay on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP), allowing states to stop preparing plans to meet the regulations on carbon emissions from existing power plants until all legal action against it is finished. The stay request was filed by over two dozen states, as well as coal and utility companies and other businesses, which think the CPP is a case of federal overreach. The temporary order will stay in place until all legal action is complete, including any appeals, a process which may suspend the rule until 2017. The Circuit Court of the District of Columbia will hear arguments against the CPP on an expedited schedule, beginning this June. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever placed a stay on a regulation before it has gone through review by a federal appeals court.
For more information see:
On February 9, President Obama released the final budget request of his presidency, with strong support for climate action and increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency in fiscal year 2017. The budget asks for $4.5 trillion in total, a five percent increase over 2016's funding levels. President Obama is calling for investment in clean energy research and development to double by 2021, starting with a 20 percent increase in funding for clean energy R&D in FY2017, as part of the 20 country public-private collaboration "Mission Innovation," announced last year before the Paris international climate negotiations. The budget also requests a $10.25/barrel tax on crude oil, which would raise $319 billion over ten years to make the transportation sector more sustainable by funding mass transit, urban planning, and research on clean vehicles (emphasis added) and vehicle automation. President Obama commented that his budget has "new investments to help the private sector create more jobs faster, lower the cost of clean energy faster, and help clean, renewable power outcompete dirty fuels in every state."
For more information see:
On February 11, a group of 17 House Democrats led by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced the Keep it in the Ground Act. The bill would stop any new leases and end nonproducing leases to extract fossil fuels on federal land and in federally controlled waters, and ban offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic. The House Keep it in the Ground Act is a version of a Senate bill introduced in November 2015 by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Rep. Huffman commented, "There is still much to be done to break our unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. Our oceans and public lands - including the fossil fuel deposits beneath them - belong to the American people, not to the oil and gas industry, and it's time the law reflects that fact."
For more information see:
On February 9, Washington state lawmakers discussed Initiative 732, a proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax that would place a price of $25/metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted within Washington state. Over 350,000 Washington have signed petitions in support of Initiative 732, which if enacted would raise the price of regular gasoline by 25 cents per gallon and increase the price of coal power generation by 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. The tax is estimated to generate $1.7 billion in revenue annually, which would be returned to state taxpayers in the form of different tax cuts. Charles Komanoff, director of the Carbon Tax Center, commented, "If the proposal goes through, it could become a template for other states to defuse concerns that are holding back a carbon tax at the federal level."
For more information see:
On February 5, the Chinese government announced it would scale back coal production capacity by up to 500 million metric tons annually over the next three to five years, in an effort to reduce industrial overcapacity and transition to more clean sources of energy. China - the largest consumer of coal in the world - would eliminate nearly nine percent of the country's capacity if it achieves this target. China also announced plans to increase financial support and encourage mergers between various extraction companies, as part of a plan to consolidate another 500 million tons per year of coal capacity in fewer mines. The government also said it will stop approving new coal mines for the next three years. Deng Shun, an analyst with ICIS China, commented, "The document does set some aggressive targets, which highlights the determination of the central government to ease oversupply."
For more information see:
New Report Updates 2011 Study on Cutting Emissions in 39 States
On February 8, a new study by Synapse Energy Economics for the Union of Concerned Scientists was released, examining and updating a report which had found that the Eastern United States could realize significant emissions reductions at a low cost. The original collaborative technical report, released in 2011, found that in 39 states ranging from Florida to Montana, economy-wide carbon emissions could be reduced 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 - greater reductions than the Clean Power Plan calls for. The new Synapse report updates this older work, showing that considering the current situation (such as the 40-50 percent drop in renewable energy costs since 2011) cutting emissions at this level would cost no more than two percent of a "business as usual" future with no emissions reductions.
For more information see:
On February 15, legislators in Oregon voted 39-20 to pass House Bill (HB) 4036, which would double the state's renewable energy mandate and gradually phase out coal-fired power plants. The bill will now go to the state Senate for approval. PacificCorp and Portland General Electric, the largest utilities in Oregon, were strong forces behind HB 4036, along with various environmental groups. The bill will require utilities to source at least 50 percent of energy demand from renewable energy by 2040, up from the state's current goal of 25 percent by 2025. While critics argue the bill will be costly for consumers without significantly reducing carbon emissions, supporters have said the bill will create jobs in renewable energy infrastructure and maintenance. An analysis from PacificCorp shows the bill will cut the state's carbon emissions by 35 million tons total through 2040, roughly equal to 58 percent of Oregon's total annual greenhouse gas emissions.
For more information see:
January Hottest on Record, with Largest Margin Ever
On February 16-17, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released data revealing that January was the warmest globally on record, marking the fourth consecutive month where NASA found the average global temperature was at least one degree C above normal. NASA found that January had an average temperature of 1.13 degree C (2.03 degrees F) above the 20th century January average (the largest margin ever), while NOAA, which uses a different calculation, found it was 1.04 degrees C (1.87 degrees F) above average (the second largest margin ever). The data from NASA also showed average temperatures in some areas of the Arctic were 23 degrees F above normal in January. (emphasis atted) These abnormally warm temperatures reduced the extent of Arctic sea ice to record-low coverage for this time of year, at 402,000 square miles below normal.
For more information see:
NOTE: Temperatures in the Arctic are increasing much more that the global average. This will likely lead to more rapid loss of ice on Greenland and speed sea level rise.
On February 12, University of British Columbia researchers presented new findings that approximately 5.5 million people die prematurely each year as a consequence of outdoor and indoor air pollution. That would make air pollution the second-leading cause of fatal diseases, behind smoking. The findings were presented at an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Washington, DC. The researchers found that around 1.4 million people in India and 1.6 million in China died of air pollution-related health issues in 2013, accounting for 55 percent of global air pollution-related fatalities. According to Michael Brauer, a co-author of the study, "Reducing levels of air pollution is actually an incredibly efficient way to improve the health of a population."
For more information see:
If you would like to receive my Climate Change News automatically by email and don’t already, just send an email message to:
If you want to stop receiving it, just send a message to climate_change_news-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. If you come across some really interesting information, please send it along and I may include it in the next issue. Recent issues are available at: http://tolmanccnews.blogspot.com
Thanks,
Chad A. Tolman
ctolman141@gmail.com
New Castle County Congregations of Delaware Interfaith Power and Light
New Castle County Congregations of Delaware Interfaith Power and Light
No comments:
Post a Comment