Talking about Copenhagen

Hey folks. I got quoted in our local paper today, talking about the climate talks in Copenhagen:

Shannon Moore, manager of the Watershed Management Section for Frederick County, writes a blog on reducing carbon emissions in everyday life.

A major effect of Copenhagen will be how China is perceived, she said. China considers itself a Third World country and wants aid to help it become more energy-efficient.

"They want to act like a Third World country, but they're not," she said. China is a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from coal.

But the world needs to move away from looking at subsidies as a solution, and move toward more market-based solutions, she said.

"It is what is going to get us out of this problem," she said.

Companies in and around Frederick are developing solar and wind energy, and this kind of renewable energy technology will get people in the United States and abroad
focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, she said.

The U.S. is good at research and development, but it doesn't get much press, she said.

Climate change is already being felt. "Our climate is warmer," she said. "Where we used to get snow, we get rain. We've changed our hardiness zones. That affects
everything."

More carbon emissions from daily activities

I saw an article in New Scientist today, and liked that it gave the carbon dioxide emissions of various daily activities (numbers are from the UK). Here they are in summary form:

• Coffee: 1 cup of balck coffee causes about 125 g of CO2 emissions. 2/3 of this is from production and transport, and 1/3 is from the energy used to brew it. "175 kilograms: The annual CO2 emission of a six-a-day coffee habit. Equivalent to a single flight between London and Rome:
• "Every kilogram of recycled tissue saves some 30 litres of water and between 3 and 4 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Since 1 kilowatt-hour of grid electricity is responsible for around 500 grams of CO2, that means a saving of 1.5 to 2 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of tissue...The average American gets through 23 toilet rolls each year, adding up to more than 7 billion rolls for the country in total."
• "The energy required to collect, process and sell a reused item of clothing is only 2 per cent of the energy required to manufacture a new garment. Every kilogram of virgin cotton preserved by reusing second-hand clothing saves 65 kilowatt-hours of energy, equivalent to about 32.5 kilograms of CO2. For polyester, the savings rise to 90 kilowatt-hours per kilogram."
• "A full load in a washing machine uses around 1.2 kilowatt-hours of electricity per cycle and tumble drying clocks up a further 3.5 kilowatt-hours, resulting in over 2 kilograms of CO2 emissions per wash. With four or five loads per household per week, the total annual emissions from each home can easily pass the half-tonne mark" [I have discussed the emissions from laundry here before].
• "US households throw away around 30 per cent of their food, worth $48 billion every year...40,200 tonnes of milk are wasted each year in the UK, adding up to the equivalent of 40,000 tonnes of CO2. This is comparable to the annual CO2 emissions of 10,000 cars, or of flying 30,000 people from London to New York and back."
• "Some plasma TV screens now measure more than 150 centimetres and, assuming average use, cause the emission of almost a tonne of CO2 each year."
• "The must-have garden accessory of a few years ago, the patio heater remains the domestic antithesis of climate change mitigation. The little useful heat that does manage to redden the foreheads of those clustered nearby comes at a cost of around 10 kilograms of CO2 for just four hours' use."

Climate change may drastically alter Bay

From the Smithsonian Institution:

It is one of the largest and most productive estuaries in the world, yet dramatic changes are in store for the Chesapeake Bay in coming decades if climate change predictions hold true, say a team of scientists from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the University of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University, and other research organizations in a recent paper published in the journal “Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science.”

Using forecasts of atmospheric carbon dioxide production for the coming century, the scientists predict the water of the Bay will see rising levels of dissolved carbon dioxide and higher water temperatures. As a result, climate change is expected to worsen problems of low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Chesapeake’s water and cause sea levels to rise.

For fish and other organisms living in the Bay, the scientists predict:

• Populations of marine fish that favor warmer water and whose northern range
  ends near the Chesapeake can be expected to increase. These include
  southern flounder, cobia, Spanish mackerel, mullet, tarpon, black drum, red
  drum, spotted sea trout, spot and Southern kingfish.
• Many fish species that favor cold water will disappear or become less
  abundant in the Chesapeake Bay, including soft clams, yellow perch, white perch,
  striped bass, black sea bass, tautog, summer and winter flounder and scup;
• Fish susceptible to winter die-offs due to the seasonal cold weather of the
  Chesapeake may see a strengthening of their populations due to warmer water, with more juveniles surviving through the winter.
• Warmer water also may result in longer growing seasons for fish, resulting
  in increased yield by some commercial fisheries. Lack of surface freezing in
  shoreline habitats could improve opportunities for oysters and other intertidal
  species to colonize shorelines.
  Some fish parasites also will likely benefit
  from warmer water, increasing their impact on fish and oysters in the bay.
• Rising sea levels will submerge some of the Bay’s wetlands, which many
  ecologically and economically important fish use as nursery areas and as
  foraging grounds. Degradation of these habitats could affect the larger
  ecosystem of the Northeast U.S. continental shelf, as many of these species
  spend their lives in the coastal Atlantic.
• An increase of carbon dioxide in the water of the Chesapeake may raise the
  acidity of the Bay and gradually reduce the ability of oysters, clams, mussels
  and other animals to build calcium carbonate shells.

With warming temperatures, “the species that make up the food web of the Chesapeake Bay will be impacted differently, likely disrupting the normal predator prey interactions between these animals,” says Denise Breitburg, a scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md. Hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen in the water, will be one prevailing characteristic of warmer Bay water, Breitburg predicts. “At warmer temperatures microbes will consume oxygen at a higher rate and less oxygen can dissolve in warm water. At the same time fish and perhaps other animals, will require more oxygen in warmer water.” With these factors in mind, “we would expect more severe episodes and negative effects of low oxygen in the Chesapeake,” Breitburg says.

The scientific paper “Potential climate-change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay,” is available at the Web address: http://snurl.com/talub

US to announce new fuel emissions standards

You knew it was coming. As early as Tuesday this week, according to the New York Times, President Obama is going to announce new national standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles. I quote items from the article:

• As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
• The president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states [including Maryland -s] and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
• Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single mileage rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard. Under that new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
• The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.

Next up: cap-and-trade.

Yes we can afford to curb climate change

Today's editorial by Paul Krugman on cap-and trade is very well written and exposes the fallacious arguments on both sides of the cap-and-trade argument. On the left, you have greenies saying that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will involve no pain on the part of consumer. On the right you have arguments that the consumer's pocketbook will catch on fire. Neither is true. Though I don't always agree with Krugman (not that my opinion matters much; he has a Nobel and I have a blog) I do think we occupy a similar chasm; we are not joiners. People do not come to us for support but the media likes to ask us for our opinions. I was thinking about this in my own case and wondering if I could find a better way to be part of a movement but I think my drive for independent thinking continually keeps me on the outside.

Anyway, Krugman argues that the costs of cap-and-trade will be borne by anyone who uses fossil fuels that are regulated. This is only common sense. It is also common sense that these costs would not be more than the price of carbon per ton. He also explains how these costs will be phased in over time, and how the price pressures might encourage investment in substitutions. None of this is new and we have talked about it since forever. But he did say the following novel thing (emphasis mine):

To put it another way, a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.

I like it when people make me think.

US "ready to lead" on climate change

From the New York Times online:

WASHINGTON — After eight years largely on the sidelines of the international policy debate on climate change, the United States is prepared to lead negotiations toward a new global warming treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

“The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad,” Mrs. Clinton told delegates from 16 countries at a State Department conference on energy and climate. “We are back in the game.”

The meeting in Washington was the first of three planned sessions among the participating countries, who together account for roughly 75 percent of emissions of the gases blamed for the heating of the planet. Officials said the conference, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, was intended to supplement, not replace, broader talks that begin in Copenhagen in December to write a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

It's about time.

Climate change news: API and cronies lied

It's hard to keep up with climate change news, these days, and I think that's a good thing. It used to be that you could write a blog about climate change and comfortably cover the main points on many fronts; we are at a critical mass. I feel like the strength of Local Warming is the focus on how individuals can save energy, money and greenhouse gases. I have also volunteered to help a local church with an energy audit so that I can become better versed in this topic to share with many of you who run commercial/institutional facilities.

But I still love the news. I especially love reading about climate news on the front page of the New York Times website:

First, NYT reports that a document filed in a lawsuit has produced "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer," an internal document written for the American Petroleum Institute and its cronies in the Global Climate Coalition. This document shows that in 1995, GCC was fully aware that humans were increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that would cause global climate change, though they debated if such climate change was already occurring. The report states unequivocally that:

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

Why does this matter? It matters because people who stood to make a profit from the consumption of fossil fuels lied to the public and to regulators about the risks from greenhouse gases. It also diminishes the standing that groups like API and the GCC have now that allow skeptics and deniers to continue to prevent us from acting on our own behalf.

Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.

In other words, the obstruction of action in regards to climate change was a jaded ploy to make money at the expense of the public and the health of the planet, and it continues today. Let's change this sooner rather than later.

Carbonless energy for Pepco, BGE <$ than coal

If you use BGE or Pepco, CleanCurrents is offering "a new carbon neutral electricity option for people in the Chesapeake region. C-Green combines standard electricity from the Mid Atlantic grid (the PJM grid) with Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs” or “green tags”) from wind farms situated across the United States, bundled together and supplied by Washington Gas Energy Services, a licensed retail energy supplier in MD and DC. This bundled product helps fight global warming by offsetting the carbon emissions from your electricity use with clean, renewable wind power." According to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, this is cheaper than coal power in the region.

If you live in Montgomery County you can get this in addition to the cheap, clean power:

SPECIAL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD RESIDENTS

The Montgomery County Clean Energy Rewards Program gives county residents a reward of a 1/2 cent per kWh (.5¢ or $.005) for up to 20,000 kWh of clean energy purchased. Clean Currents was a founding member of the program with RECs and C-Green.

More Catholics think global warming manmade

The elections are over, but FiveThirtyEight.com is still going strong. A recent post by Nate Silver called The Pope and the Planet caught my eye: "The institution of the Catholic Church is often unpopular with liberals for its position on issues like family planning, but it can also be a force for social progress. In particular, the first thing I noticed from this Gallup survey on attitudes toward global warming is that the percentage of persons who think global warming is manmade appears to be much higher in predominately Catholic nations than in Protestant ones...In majority-Catholic nations, on average, 65 percent of adults believe that global warming is manmade, versus 47 percent in Protestant ones (the figure for the United States, which has a Protestant majority, is 49 percent). Countries with an Orthodox majority are somewhere in the middle, as are those where a majority is Christian, but neither Catholic or Protestant theologies predominate. Buddhist countries also seem more inclined toward environmental protection; Islamic ones appear less so." Nate and I both attribute this to the actions of the Pope, who has been extremely outspoken about the need to curb manmade global warming.

Five energy saving products for Earth Day

Happy Earth Day! In celebration I thought I would highlight five products that I have come across that I think could save energy, save money, and save greenhouse gases. These are culled from a much larger list of products. In most cases, I have either tried them myself or know someone who has tried them. I am not a big product promoter and am not making money off of these. But they stand out. I still think most of these products are too expensive for the average consumer, but I am going to run some numbers to see what the payback periods are for them.

1. Earth LED EvoLux bulbs: They turn on quickly like incandescents, and fit in a regular fixture. 13 watts at a 100 watt equivalent. At $80 a piece, these are pretty expensive. Over 10 years at an electricity cost of $0.10/kwh, each one would save you $212.76 including the averted cost of replacement light bulbs. These are the first LED lights for home uses that glow like an incandescent bulb.
2. CREE recessed LED down light: These award-winning lamps put out a solid glow that looks like an incandescent fixture. The intial cost is $130, about $100 more than a standard can light. But over ten years using one bulb 8 hours a day, you will save $196.20 in electricity and bulb replacement savings. The payoff is about 3 years, 3 months if your electricity costs $0.10/kwh.
3. Athalon LED exit light replacement: Replace the incandescent bulbs in your exit lights. They stay on all the time so the savings really add up. They cost about $12.95. One watt versus the 20w standard, on for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and you'll save 166o kilowatts every ten years. You'll also save $160 in electricity in ten years, plus the $18.75 in replacement bulbs minus your original bulb cost of $12.95, for a total of $165.80 . About 9.4 month payback period.
4. ScanGaugeII: Not only can this meter give you real-time mpg feedback (like what you would get on a Prius) to make you change your driving habits, it also can read diagnostic codes for your vehicle. My dad discovered he had a bad O2 sensor, and replaced it himself. He saved the cost of going to a shop, plus the vehicle runs more efficiently. Costs about $159. Estimates on savings vary. I am testing this out with a Boy Scout Venture Crew as part of an energy saving project they are doing, and will let you know.
5. Belkin Remote Control Power Strips: Yes, we know we should use power strips with surge protectors, and we do, but they are difficult to reach. Not any more. Cost- about $50. Savings- I assume you're using a power strip already, so the remote is about convenience. But if you're not, you'll save vampire power from whatever you plug into the strip.