Is there a warming trend?

This info-graphic (via Climate Central) has been making the rounds lately -- it does a great job showing the warming trend over time, and just how close we're getting to the dangerous 1.5 degree threshold:

Stay going.

-

Land Temperature Anomaly Video from Berkeley Earth

The following minute-long video is a powerful representation of the warming that's occurred since the industrial revolution.  Have a look.

Berkeley Earth Land Temperature Anomaly Video:


Stay going.

Prop 23 & Green Jobs

A friend sent me a recent Opinion piece from the Wall St. Journal titled "Prop 23 and the Green Jobs Myth" by T.J. Rodgers - founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, which acquired SunPower Corp - one of our country's largest solar companies - in 2003.

Image source: Solar Richmond, www.solarrichmond.net

In the piece, Rodgers supports the fossil-fuel industry-backed Prop 23 by essentially trying to tie it to California's economic troubles, and claiming it will hurt job growth.  I can appreciate the position that putting a direct price on pollution can look like an added cost, but I hold that it's correcting a market distortion - we are and will continue to pay the costs of extracting and burning fossil fuels whether we do so directly (by pricing carbon) or indirectly (through healthcare, destruction of personal property & infrastructure, loss of life, undermining ecosystem services, etc.).  

Image source: The 6th Extinction

Attempts to tie a direct line from AB 32 (California's climate change legislation) to the state's current economic woes are disingenuous. First, the law hasn't gone into effect yet.  Second, the initial targets of AB 32 are so easy to meet, that the costs will be more than offset by cost savings from efficiency upgrades and better processes.  I know Econ 101 tells us that business would already have realized all of those cost-savings if the potential was there, but businesses are run by people, and as we know people aren't always perfect - the vast majority of businesses have huge unrealized opportunities for cost-savings with little or no upfront investment.

For example, EDF's Climate Corps program hires MBA students to help big companies identify efficiency opportunities - this year 50 interns generated $350 million in savings for these companies. Starting to send the price signal to the correct source - which AB 32 will do, and which Prop 23 is trying to stop - will accelerate these efforts and further innovations to make our economy more efficient, more effective, and more competitive. 

At Cisco Systems, fellow Emily Reyna developed a plan
for installing energy-saving devices in R&D labs that
could save an estimated $8 million per year (with an
18-month payback) and reduce Cisco’s greenhouse
gas emissions by 3%. Source: EDF

I also disagree with the suggestion that the green jobs that AB 32 (and other policies like it) will promote, are a false promise.  I do think most reports on both sides of this topic require a lot of assumptions and aren't perfect.  Still, here's one that finds that policies that incentivize more efficient energy use -- it looks at the case of California, where energy efficiency policies from 1977-2007 created 1.5 million jobs while eliminating fewer than 25,000: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/business/20green.html.  An overview of some other studies that show the expected job growth impacts of AB 32 is available in this Climate Progress post. 

In his piece, Rodgers talks about how SunPower moved manufacturing offshore because of the "high cost and red tape" of manufacturing in the US.  This opens up another whole conversation, but I think this rationale eludes the basic point -- labor's inexpensive in places like the Philippines and Malaysia (where their plants are) because wages and the general standard of living is very low.  That's obviously not what we want for California and Californian workers. More to the point, the piece only talks about the jobs manufacturing solar panels -- the real appeal of green jobs is that most of them can't be outsourced - the jobs installing and maintaining the solar panels (as well as financing the solar panels, weatherizing houses, lighting retrofits, installing green roofs, farming local foods, etc. etc.) 

SunPower's Malaysian fab plant.
Image source: EngineerLive

The piece also claims European subsidies that have helped support the market for renewable energy there have had a net-negative impact on jobs. Here is a White Paper from the National Renewable Energy Lab refuting the study cited to support this claim.  Much of the growth in the solar market (and presumably SunPower's revenue) over the past 5 years can be attributed to these policy structures of the major solar markets in Germany and Spain.  In 2003, when Cypress acquired SunPower it was losing money - outsourcing jobs likely had some impact in turning that around, but I'd wager a much stronger driver was the solar market exploding over that time -- due in no small part to these policies and Europe's cap & trade system, as well as the awareness building that hundreds of groups have done on the true costs and impacts of fossil fuels.

Of course, it's surprising to read a piece supporting Prop 23 authored by the Chair of solar company, as it's so clearly bad for the company's growth.  It reminds me of Tony Hayward who said when he took over BP: "We had too many people trying to save the world" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/bp-ceo-hayward-we-had-too_b_585610.html) -- he promptly went to work trying to turn that around, getting super-efficient in a traditional, linear sense, and cutting corners to disastrous effect. 

Here are a few of yesterday's headlines from Point Carbon, that covers the full-fledged carbon market that has been in effect in Europe for 5 years.  The second one makes a very flexible system even more flexible -- the companies impacted by this will likely make a lot more money than they currently are as a result.  The third one removes any legitimacy of trying to tag cap and trade as a "tax".  

• Market praises California's cap-and-trade design Published: 29 Oct 2010 California's cap-and-trade system will spur investment in clean energy, market sources said.
• California boosts offset limit in cap-and-trade system Published: 29 Oct 2010California emitters can use offsets to meet 8 per cent of their compliance obligation.
• California to give away majority of allowances Published: 29 Oct 2010California will hand out most of its allowances at the start of its cap-and-trade programme.

Here's another good take on Proposition 23 from Thomas Friedman: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

I respect Mr. Rodger's leadership of SunPower Corp, and hope he will come around and see how policies like AB 32 (or anything that puts a price on carbon) will help his company, and create jobs and improve efficiency and competitiveness.

Finally, the piece states: "While our state government frets over issues like... the habitat of the red-legged frog, our economy—the habitat of homo sapiens—is a disaster."  This brings up the most essential point. We need to really internalize the reality that the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the biosphere.  The red-legged frog's habitat and our habitat are one and the same.  Without policies like AB 32 we will degrade that habitat to the point where it won't be able to support our civilization - and at that point it won't matter how many jobs we were or weren't able to create in the short-term.  Luckily, these policies will create jobs and create a whole new economy that is sustainable for the long term.

Californians, please vote "no" on Prop 23 on Tuesday.

Stay going. 

A message to World Leaders from Global Youth

A compelling post-Copenhagen message to those in leadership positions from leaders around the world:

This is part of 350.org's recap of the 2009 - an amazing year for progress on climate action, but one that still fell far short of what's needed. 2010 is going to be huge.

Happy New Year.

Stay going

.

Hundreds Gather to Fight Global Warming!

Happy Holidays!

Stay going.

Hopenhagen

Another grassroots campaign to show the broad support for meaningful action in Copenhagen (we need all we can get!)

Check out the site - pretty inspiring to see the quotes from around the world of what gives people hope in a very cool visual lay out: http://hopenhagen.org/

And sign the petition.

Stay going.
.

Climate disruption and national security

With the backdrop of the UN parties gear up for pre-Copenhagen talks in Bonn this week, the New York Times ran a great piece yesterday about the threat to national security and peace that climate disruption represents.

A to-the-point quote:

“We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

Stay going.

Clean Coal

Just a quick bit of news that shouldn't get missed in this holiday season, from Grist:

More than a billion gallons of coal ash have spilled from a coal-burning power plant in eastern Tennessee since Dec. 22, when a retention wall at the plant burst. That's billion with a "B," which means the amount of gunk spilled is about 100 times larger than the mess from the Exxon Valdez disaster. Gray sludge has spread across 300 acres, wiped out three homes, oozed into a tributary of the Tennessee River, and made a lot of local residents worried about their health and water supplies. Coal ash contains mercury and traces of heavy metals like arsenic and uranium. In the wake of the spill, high levels of arsenic have been found in some rivers and wells near the spill site, though authorities insist that drinking water is still safe. Enviros are seizing the opportunity to point out that "clean coal" is an oxymoron.

For those of you in Massachusetts interested in eliminating the local impacts of coal pollution (or really those of you anywhere wanting to help eliminate the global impacts of coal pollution) - sign this petition to shut down Dominion's Salem coal plant: http://www.stoptheplantnow.org/petition.htm























Stay going...

The Passive House

At the AASHE 2008 Conference, I met a rep from the Passive House Institute which was very encouraging to see - passive solar design is a key concept to green building and one that unfortunately too often gets overlooked or glossed over. The other day my father sent me this NYT article about passive homes in Germany that have no furnaces are kept warm with great insulation, solar gain, and body heat. Again, very exciting stuff – it helps to show one element of how through good design we can create a climate neutral, sustainable future – but still, it generated some confusion on my part as to why this one (very important) element of green building is being broken out as its own thing, seemingly separate. Maybe it’s because it has been glossed over too often in casual converstaions about green building, or maybe it's because it’s less complex, and more understandable to look at one piece at a time. Of course this one piece in and of itself is quite complex – it integrates he building envelop, insulation, windows, site orientation, ventilation system (with heat exchange), and room layout, and again is a big central part of green building generally. So maybe it’s just that the terminology “passive house” is a better description of “green building” – no confusion with exterior paint colors. Whatever the reason, it’s a great trend – and one we really need to develop here, quickly.

We had a blower door test done recently and found all of our leaks and under-insulated spots. There were a lot of them, and we’ve got a guy coming soon to fill in the parts of the roof with no insulation as an immediate first step. The next steps are to seal up all of the holes and gaps in the floor, get the walls insulated, update the windows, and hopefully put in some new windows on a Southwest wall. Before sealing up that tight though, we need to find a good solution to air quality and moisture – a ventilation system with a heat exchange that can work in our old house. It will be interesting to see how close we can get to a ‘super-insulated’ house that we can heat with the sun and some body heat. Starting from scratch it’s easier – I always think of the Rocky Mountain Institute headquarters that doesn’t need a heating system, and on cold overcast days, they throw tennis ball down the hall for the dog for auxiliary heat.

Stay going…

"Somthing is Hinky"

A good little rant from Letterman. And even though Dave points out that it might not matter, I'm compelled to share this more optimistic clip about the president of Unity College in Maine and his new net energy producing house. The coolest part about this is that while it's got enough solar panels to provide 3 times the electricity they need - that has less to do with the number of panels and more to do with the good insulation and efficient lighting for high efficiency, and smart design of the house to take advantage of passive solar and daylighting:

http://www.wmtw.com/video/17593519/index.html

Stay going

Methane chimneys

This story hit the Independent yesterday, and I really hope these preliminary findings are exaggerated, or not what they seem:

Exclusive: The methane time bomb

Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting permafrost releases millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Preliminary findings suggest that massive deposits of subsea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats

5 things for global warming

Check out this recent piece by NASA Climate scientist James Hansen - it touches on (once again) the gap between what the scientists know, and what the public and policy-makers understand.

This gap lies at the heart of why we need to move away from reductionism, where we study and address everything in isolation in separate disciplines /departments /silos / sectors / drill holes, to a whole-system approach where policy makers and scientists, engineers and biologists, economists and consumers, businessmen and school teachers, can understand eachother because they have a shared, relevant view of the whole-system. This is the first step in taking a strategic appraoch to sustainability.

But I digress, Hansen's article offers 5 things we need to do, now, to address global warming. I think there are more inspiring ways we could go about addressing the challenge - and people are starting to do that, finding synergistic solutions through sustainable urban planning, green building, sustainable product design, permaculture, and the like - but these would certainly help, and are straight forward, necessary actions, regardless if they come about through transformational change of global society or through regulation:

1) Put a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants until we have the technology to capture and sequester the CO2
2) Put a price on emissions
3) Establish and enforce energy-efficiency standards (buildings & vehicles)
4) Study and report on ice-sheet stability (not sure how knowing more about the symptom helps us cure the root cause, but it's certainly important research, especially as we are forced to focus on adaptation as well as mitigation)
5) Reform of communication practices (so we can avoid the disasters of reductionism)

The full piece is brief, and available here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/hansen

Stay going.

Understanding systems...

First, thanks very much for the comment with the link to the Newsweek Article on William McDonough’s work in China – very interesting and exciting stuff. Particularly intriguing for me is to consider how he’s able to implement a lot of the progressive, innovative aspects in the development, given the top-down authority that the government there commands. Can be used for good or bad, I suppose.

Also – this week I somehow stumbled upon this brief article on GHG emissions:

US Greenhouse Gas Emission Slows Down

October 7, 2005 9:30 a.m. EST

Andrea Moore - All Headline News Staff Reporter

Washington, DC (AHN) - The chief U.S. negotiator on global warming acknowledges Thursday the nation's pace in emitting greenhouse gases has slowed.

Harlan Watson, a State Department special envoy, tells the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, "One can argue whether it's slowing down fast enough, but it is slowing down."

The United States releases about 6.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases into the air each year; a quarter of the world's total emissions, which scientists blame for heating the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

Emissions are growing at the rate of about 1.5 percent a year. That growth rate is expected to drop to about 1.3 percent by 2012 as industries adopt newer and cleaner technology.

I post it only to point out how misleading headlines can be at times. The headline seems pretty upbeat because it suggests at first glance that the US is scaling back it’s GHG emissions, when in fact the opposite is true – we’re increasing our emissions at a solid rate of 1.5% every year. That rate of growth is expected to slow to 1.3% a year by 2012 – but that, of course, is 1.3% of a larger number, because between now and 2012, we’ll continue to emit more and more GHG each year.

Again, I’m not a huge fan of getting into the global change debate (despite the fact that it is probably the biggest, most urgent challenge we face) because it is “in the leaves” – and gets away from the core principle problems about how we meet our needs. But this concept exemplifies the difficulties of whole systems thinking.

An interesting study was conducted about this, using this example of CO₂ emissions. Researchers from MIT (John Sterman and Linda Booth Sweeney) explained the dynamics of global warming to MBA students at Harvard, Stanford, and MIT and presented them with two scenarios showing projected CO₂ emissions rates (flows) and CO₂ levels in the atmosphere (stocks), and asked them to identify what the trends would be given various cut backs in emissions. Almost two-thirds of the students failed to correctly recognize the trend (which would be continued global warming) because they didn’t consider the rate at which CO₂ was pulled from the atmosphere (through photosynthesis, and the impact deforestation has on natural systems capacity to do that) or the fact that the CO₂ already in the atmosphere would continue to have effects even if human emissions stopped all together.

Anyhow, misunderstanding about the basic functions of these systems can promote in-action, and a lost sense of urgency about what our current reality really looks like – so it’s important to be clear.

Stay going…