Couric to Palin: Man-made global warming?

Katie Couric's interview excerpts with Governor Sarah Palin just keep getting deeper and deeper. Here's the most recent position stated by Palin on the issue of climate change, from CBS:

Couric: What's your position on global warming? Do you believe it's man-made or not?

Palin: Well, we're the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I've done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And …

Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?

Palin: You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it.

For more on Palin and her various positions on whether climate change is real or man-made, visit here. For more on Palin and climate change issues, see here.

To see the spot on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric where I talk about climate change and energy savings, go here. I thought I would add that for self-aggrandizement. It's almost related.

Maryland makes $16.4MM from RGGI GHG sale

The first auction for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, took place this past week, and the results are out. Maryland made $16.4 million on the sale of 12.5 million tons of greenhouse gas allowances. What is the cost to consumers? From the Baltimore Sun:

Officials coordinating the regional effort have predicted that the new system could increase electric bills by $1 or so per month, but Maryland officials have suggested consumers' bills could decrease as a result of efficiency efforts.

This argument sounds a little sloppy but here is how the money will be spent:

Under state law approved this year, nearly half of the proceeds of Maryland's auction will be used to underwrite state programs promoting energy efficiency. Nearly a quarter will go to rate relief for consumers, with an additional 17 percent earmarked to provide free energy assistance to low-income utility customers. The remainder will be spent on public education, environmental regulation and oversight of the effort.

The sale of the permits went well, which bodes well for future sales and for other regions. For more on the sale, see the RGGI website.

Financing for PV panels for homeowners

Last week, I attended a presentation by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) to the Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County Maryland. MWCOG gave an example of financing for photovoltaic (solar) panels for homeowners that our Commissioners appeared to like. Basically, a municipality creates a bond that can be used to finance PV panels on homes. Homeowners borrow from the bond and then pay back with their property taxes; this way, the improvements are tax-deductible. And when the house is sold, the new owner also makes the payment until the panels are paid off. MWCOG discussed that Annapolis is pursuing this; the idea actually originated in Berkeley, California. There are other advantages; municipalities have the ability to borrow at lower rates than homeowners and can pass the savings along. The program also creates green jobs. Berkeley has a $1.5MM bond and the payback period is 20 years.

I am not sure if PV panels are what we should push first. I would think that energy retrofits that include insulation and crack sealing, solar hot water heating, energy efficient boilers and hot water heaters, and other technologies should be promoted first because they have a better payback. PV is on the verge of becoming affordable and I think we are almost there. But just because the technology is the sexiest does not mean it will accomplish the most.

Financing structures for the purchase of capital-intensive energy savers are being considered for other purposes; some municipalities are creating such funds for themselves to pay for green amenities that may cost more up-front but pay back themselves over time in operating costs.

Alternative energy and energy conservation measures: safe financial investments in troubled times.

Green industry would create 36,739 jobs in MD

The Center for American Progress thank tank has evaluated the potential economic impacts of green industries by state. The link to Maryland is here. Some highlights:

• Maryland’s share of national green economic recovery program: $1.9 billion, based on combining state’s population and gross domestic product.
• Maryland’s net job creation through green economic recovery program: 36,739 jobs, based on Maryland unemployment figures in June 2008.
• Impact on Maryland’s labor market: a net increase of 36,739 jobs would reduce Maryland’s unemployment rate to 3.1 percent in two years from 4.3 percent in June 2008.
• The vast majority of jobs created through a green economic recovery program are in the same areas of employment that people already work in today, in every region and state of the country. Constructing wind farms, for example, creates jobs for sheet metal workers, machinists, and truck drivers, among many others. Increasing the energy efficiency of Maryland unemployment rate through retrofitting requires roofers, insulators, and building inspectors. Expanding mass transit systems employs civil engineers, electricians, and dispatchers.

Here is the breakdown on the increase in GDP:

• Energy efficient building retrofits: $766 million
• Mass transit and freight rail: $383 million
• Smart grid: $191 million
• Wind power, solar power, and advanced biofuels: $574 million

Where do we sign up?

Gore encourages civil disobedience...again

On November 6, 2007, I reported that Al Gore was encouraging civil disobedience by young people. He's done it again, this time explicitly, at the Clinton Global Initiative:

"If you’re a young person, I believe we’ve reached a point of civil disobedience."

Why young persons? Do they have less to lose?

This statement by Gore, combined with the UK legal judgment for Greenpeace activists this month, suggests that the climate movement has hit one of these thresholds within both itself and with the acceptance of parts of the establishment. The images are of Al Gore and the mastermind who wrote Civil Disobedience, Thoreau.

RGGI begins trading tomorrow

Yesterday I heard an interesting tidbit on NPR. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), of which Maryland is a member, begins trading greenhouse gas credits tomorrow. RGGI is a "cooperative effort by ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to limit greenhouse gas emissions. RGGI is the first mandatory, market-based CO2 emissions reduction program in the United States." [I also heard Emilie Mazzacurati (an alumnus from the Bren School, where I got my Master's) talking about the trades- nice work!]. Anyone can buy the credits, which are created for power plants. 12,565,387 will be available. With demand for energy down, some environmental groups are urging RGGI to retire some credits. That is not likely to happen this year. RGGI will post the results of the sale here on Monday, 9/29. The goal of RGGI is a 10% reduction in emissions by 2018. How it works, from the RGGI website:

• Establishing a multi-state CO2 emissions budget (cap) that will decrease gradually until it is 10 percent lower than at the start
• Requiring electric power generator to hold allowances covering their emissions of CO2
• Providing a market-based emissions auction and trading system where electric power generators can buy, sell and trade CO2 emissions allowances
• Using the proceeds of allowance auctions to support low-carbon-intensity solutions, including energy efficiency and clean renewable energy, such as solar and wind power
• Employing offsets (greenhouse gas emissions reduction or sequestration projects at sources beyond the electricity sector) to help companies meet their compliance obligations.

The skinny on H.R. 6899- and the pork

The House has passed an energy measure known as H.R. 6899, Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. This bill contains some crap items, specifically unlimited offshore drilling beyond 100 miles of coast with the ability for states to approve drilling within 50 miles. But the measure also repeals 18 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry, which is long overdue. It also includes "Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2008 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to set forth incentives and credits relating, in part, to: (1) clean renewable energy bonds; (2) advanced coal project investments; (3) transportation and domestic fuel security; and (4) energy conservation and efficiency." This little piece of legislation was originally part of the Energy Bill but was killed by Republicans. Yes, Republicans. You can run from your record but you can't hide. The President in his infinite wisdom has threatened to veto because there is a limit to the amount of drilling allowed offshore. Shill, baby, shill.

There are lesser known provisions of this bill, from Thomas:

• Requires approval of the adjacent state for oil or gas leasing in any area located within 100 miles from its coastline and within its seaward lateral boundaries. [This would be interesting for a concave state that wants oil drilling whose neighbors do not.]
• Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2008 - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to agree to any lessee request to amend any oil and gas lease issued for any Gulf of Mexico tract during 1998-1999 to incorporate specified price thresholds applicable to royalty suspensions.
• Reaffirms authority of such Secretary to vary the suspension of royalties under certain leases, based on the price of production.
• Establishes a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
• Prescribes conditions for: (1) federal receipt of oil or gas as royalties in-kind; and (2) royalty-in kind ethics. [timely]
• Empowers the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior to use subpoenas to pursue any investigation involving property leases from the United States through the Minerals Management Services for purposes of oil and mineral extraction. [But the Bush Administration doesn't listen to subpoenas anyway]
• Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008 - Amends the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 to provide for acceleration of lease sales for national petroleum reserve in Alaska.
• Directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to facilitate construction of pipelines to transport oil and natural gas from or through the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to existing transportation or processing infrastructure on the North Slope of Alaska. [Palin is having her say here]
• Bans the export of Alaskan oil. [Why not ban the export of all of our oil? By the way, this part of the legislation may be illegal in the face of trade agreements]
• Amends the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 to repeal the ban on: (1) final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources on public lands; and (2) oil shale lease sales.
• Amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require state approval of federal oil shale leasing in the state.
• Consumer Energy Supply Act of 2008 - Prescribes conditions for the sale and replacement of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
• Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008 - Provides for: (1) grants to improve public transportation services; (2) vanpool demonstration projects; and (2) a national consumer awareness program on public transportation alternatives.
• Amends the Energy Conservation and Production Act to revise requirements for the updating of state building energy codes.
• Amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to prescribe a federal renewable electricity standard.
• Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2008, or the GREEN Act of 2008 - Prescribes requirements for Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs and activities relating to energy efficiency, including standards and energy efficient mortgages.
• Directs the Secretary of Energy to award a competitive grant to one consortium of institutions of higher education to establish a National Energy Center of Excellence.

Is this good legislation? It's not great. The Democrats failed to capture the lead on energy in the minds of the people, though they have a longer view of the issue that will ultimately address global warming. The bill includes provisions for clean coal, which is pure pandering and a sham. The American public supports drilling, which is a shame. As Tommy Smothers said last night at the Emmys, "Truth is what you get other people to believe." He also said "there is nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action."

Drill, baby, drill.

MWCOG active on climate change issue

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments yesterday made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County, MD about its draft Climate Change Report, available here. MWCOG has also published National Capital Region: Best Practices and Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gases. I took an hour off work to see this presentation and it was an exciting moment for me to see the interest our Commissioners have in addressing this issue in a positive way. A major focus of the presentation was how adopting the recommendations in the report would not only reduce greenhouse gases, but also save energy and improve quality of life. MWCOG is an organization comprised of governing bodies in the Metropolitan Washington region, as the name suggests. MWCOG has adopted greenhouse gas reduction goals that "reduce greenhouse gas emissions 10% below business as usual by 2012; reduce 20% below 2005 levels by 2020; and reduce 80% below 2005 levels by 2050."

I highly recommend anyone interested in the local application of greenhouse gas reductions to review these reports. I will be talking more about them in the coming weeks.

To reduce global warming, change your albedo

Albedo is a fancy word for percent reflectivity. White surfaces have a high albedo and black ones have a low albedo. Dark surfaces absorb light and emit heat; one of the lesser known causes of global warming is decreased albedo. For example, the particulate soot from fossil fuel burning lowers the albedo of glaciers and accelerates the formation of moulins. Here's another example, with a solution, from the Los Angeles Times:

If the 100 biggest cities in the world installed white roofs and changed their pavement to more reflective materials -- say, concrete instead of asphalt-based material -- the global cooling effect would be massive, according to data released Tuesday at California's annual Climate Change Research Conference in Sacramento.

Since 2005, the Golden State has required that flat commercial structures have white roofs. Next year, new and retrofitted residential and commercial buildings, with both flat and sloped roofs, will have to install heat-reflecting roofing, as part of an energy-efficient building code.But the state has yet to pass any rules to encourage cooler pavement on its roads, which are largely coated with heat-absorbing asphalt, a cheap byproduct of oil refining. According to Hashem Akbari, a physicist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a 1,000-square-foot roof -- the average size on an American home -- offsets 10 metric tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere if dark-colored shingles or coatings are replaced with white material.

Globally, roofs account for 25% of the surface of most cities, and pavement accounts for about 35%. If all were switched to reflective material in 100 major urban areas, it would offset 44 metric gigatons of greenhouse gases, which have been trapping heat in the atmosphere and altering the climate on a potentially dangerous scale.

That is more than all the countries on Earth emit in a single year. And, with global climate negotiators focused on limiting a rapid increase in emissions, installing cool roofs and pavements would offset more than 10 years of emissions growth, even without slashing industrial pollution.

Akbari's paper, "Global Cooling: Increasing Worldwide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2," to be published in the journal Climatic Change, was written with his colleague Surabi Menon and UC Berkeley physicist Arthur Rosenfeld, a member of the California Energy Commission. All three have been associated with the laboratory's Heat Island Group, which has published extensive research on how roofs and pavement raise urban temperatures.

Akbari and Rosenfeld said they will mount an effort to persuade the United Nations to organize major cities to alter their roofing and pavement."

I call it win-win-win," Akbari said. "First, a cooler environment not only saves energy but improves comfort. Second, cooling a city by a few degrees dramatically reduces smog. And the third win is offsetting global warming."

I love a good win-win solution.

GW is God huggin' us closer: Tina Fey on Palin

"I believe global warming is caused by man," claims Hillary Clinton (played by Amy Poehler on SNL). Sarah Palin (played by Tina Fey) replies, "And I believe it's just God huggin' us closer." Enjoy. The original clip is here.

Palin flip-flops on climate change

Updated 10/1/08

In a previous post, I reviewed Governor Sarah Palin's position on global warming and related energy concerns. I found a number of instances where Palin explicitly states that she does not believe that global warming is man-made. Let's review a history of Palin and her denial of man-made climate change, just to call a spade a spade.

• 10/3/08: In the Vice Presidential Debate, says "I’m not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate [sic]. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts? […]
  We’ve got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don’t care as much about the climate as we do, we’re allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it’s all the more reason that we have an “all of the above” approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change."
• 9/30/08: In an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News, states, "Well, we're the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I've done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And …You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it."
• 9/11/08: In an interview with ABC, Palin says, "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our Union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless though of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution...Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that."
• 8/29/08: In an interview with Newsmax, Palin states: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."
• 12/4/07: In an interview with the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, states "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren't changes."
• 11/4/06: The Anchorage Daily News reports that "Palin isn't so sure it's not a natural warming cycle, according to her spokesman, Curtis Smith. 'She's not totally convinced one way or the other,' Smith said. 'Science will tell us, and she's proud that UAF will have a role in that. She thinks the jury's still out.'...'I will not pretend to have all the answers,' Palin said about global warming at the recent Alaska Federation of Natives convention, where delegates passed a resolution calling for a mandatory reduction in pollution affecting the atmosphere. Answering a question from the Daily News, Palin cautioned against 'overreaction.'

I have seen many people's perceptions on climate change evolve over time. But not in a matter of days out of political convenience.

Lawful excuse for civil disobedience?

I read an article in the UK Guardian today about how UK courts dismissed "criminal damage" charges against Greenpeace activists who vandalized a smokestack. The activists had painted "Gordon" on the stack, trying to shame the UK Prime Minister about inaction on climate change. Activists were originally trying to write "GORDON – BIN IT", regarding construction of new coal-fired plants that contribute to global warming pollution. The court heard arguments from heavy hitters like NASA's James Hansen, who told the court that the word was in "grave peril." The amazing thing is that the charges were dropped on a legal argument known as a "lawful excuse" defense.

What is lawful excuse? In British law, to be convicted of "criminal damage", it must be without "lawful excuse" per Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act of 1971:

Apart from the general self-defence excuse applicable to any offence involving violent acts, section 5 of the Act sets out specific provisions in relation to criminal damage: a defendant will have "lawful excuse" if
(a) at the time ... he believed that the person ... believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction or damage ... had so consented, or would have consented had they known ..., or
(b) he destroyed or damaged ... the property in question ... and in order to protect the property ... and at the time ... he believed
(i) that the property ... was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection ... were ... reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

Section 5(3) of the Act states that it is immaterial whether the defendant's belief is justified as long as it is an honest belief, and therefore creates a subjective test to be
assessed by the court or jury.

In other words, humanity, if it fully understood the consequences of climate change, would consent to the property damage (and that humanity therefore owns all property), and that the UK government is knowingly hurting humanity by building more coal plants. I don't think we have anything like this in the United States, especially a law that uses such a broad definition of property rights and relies on interpreting the beliefs of the perpetrator in order to assess guilt. But I am very interested to see that the court believed that the perception that the vandals were trying to protect humanity against great peril was what saved them in court. Comment away!

All of the above- for political reasons only

The Republicans have hit a populist nerve with their call for offshore drilling. Yes, it's a stupid idea (see my last post). The problem is that they have convinced a number of citizens that the answer to high gas prices is to drill more. It's a logical fallacy that relies on its listener not understanding a larger context that reduces the argument to absurdity. Nevertheless, the reality is that a majority of Americans now support offshore drilling. Some day the Democrats will have to understand that being right is simply not enough to convince people that you are right.

Congress is back in session, and the House Democrats have proposed a savvy piece of legislation that includes limited offshore drilling as a compromise but also includes some trojan horses like repealing tax loops for oil and gas companies and providing incentives for renewables. This legislation has the potential to be extremely popular if it is "sold" properly to the public, and it sticks it to the Repubs. First, their sacred cow, Big Oil, gets taxed. Second, they are forced to invest in the technologies that they claim to support but really don't. The bill may also grow to regulate Commodity Futures Trading, which most people with sense believe has driven up the cost of oil. It may also include assistance for American automobile manufacturers to retool.

The Democrats should be wary of the Republican arguments on this one; for example, that the drilling is not extensive enough. As with anything, the winner on this issue is the entity that puts its message out there in the most effective way, and not the one with the best plan.

Read more at ClimateProgress.

Drill, baby, drill? Really? Are you serious?

Ah, the knee jerk reaction that the Republican Party leadership was counting on: consumers, fed up with high oil prices, once again fall prey to the oil and gas lobby that controls the Republican party. Citizens fervently chant "drill, baby, drill!"

Let me just say that these pols are smart. They know how to capitalize on frustration and anger. Never mind the fact that they have created it. I think these days to be a good Republican you have to lack an understanding of cause and effect. Here's another example:

Scientists have been saying since the seventies that the accumulation of greenhouse gases will eventually cause global warming. Republicans have denied it. Now that global warming is a reality, Republicans say they don't think it's caused by humans.

Or here's another one: The Arctic is melting because of global warming that is caused, by and large, by the burning of fossil fuels. What's the first thing the Republicans want to do? Stake our claims there so that we can drill for more.

I am not blaming all Republicans. I have very dear friends that are Republicans for reasons of fiscal conservatism; but that party is dead. Get out while you still can.

The graph is from Architecture 2030 and shows just how much of global oil demand will be satisfied by new offshore drilling by 2030. Yeah, not much.

The times demand change. Making more money for the oil companies IS NOT CHANGE.

Sea level to increase .8 to 2m by end of century

From ClimateProgress:

Scientific analysis is finally catching up to scientific observation. In 2001, the IPCC projected that neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. The IPCC made the same basic projection again in 2007. Yet both ice sheets already are. As Penn State climatologist Richard Alley said in March 2006, the ice sheets appear to be shrinking “100 years ahead of schedule.”

The loss of ice from the Antarctic and Greenland have led to new predictions of sea level increase this century. A new study in Science Magazine states that "on the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR [Sea Level Rise] to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m."

It strikes me as sad that scientists have been saying for years that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to global warming, and when we finally see "unequivocal" evidence of this, someone like Sarah Palin can say "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made". Has she been living in a cave? If not, she may be by 2100.

The Democratic Party Platform on Climate Change

Though I have not been able to find a final approved version of the platform from the DNC, I have found the report of the platform committee from August 13th which I believe contains the platform as it was approved. If I get ahold of another version I will update this link. Interestingly, rather than being a concise mention as was done in the Republican platform, references to climate change are integrated into other issues such as foreign relations and national security. The climate change sections are also a lot longer, and more detailed. Here are the platform elements as they address climate change:

This plan will safeguard our economy, our country, and the future of our planet. This plan will create good jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. With these policies, we will protect our country from the national security threats created by reliance on foreign oil and global insecurity due to climate change. And this is how we’ll solve the problem of four-dollar-a-gallon gas— with a comprehensive plan and investment in clean energy...

Barack Obama will focus this strategy on seven goals: (i) ending the war in Iraq responsibly; (ii) defeating Al Qaeda and combating violent extremism; (iii) securing nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists; (iv) revitalizing and supporting our military; (v) renewing our partnerships to promote our common security; (vi) advancing democracy and development; and (vii) protecting our planet by achieving energy security and combating climate change.

Working for Our Common Security

Too often, in recent years, we have sent the opposite signal to our international partners. In the case of Europe, we dismissed European reservations about the wisdom and necessity of the Iraq war and their concerns about climate change...

Lead in Asia

...It’s time to engage China on common interests like climate change, trade, and energy, even as we continue to encourage its shift to a more open society and a market-based economy...

Revitalize Global Institutions

To enhance global cooperation on issues from weapons proliferation to climate change, we need stronger international institutions.

Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet

We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, conflict, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. That could also mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

We understand that climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern– this is a national security crisis.

Establish Energy Security

Not since the 1970s has America’s national security been so threatened by its energy insecurity, and, as we have learned the hard way over the past eight years, achieving energy security in the 21st century requires far more than simply expending our economic and political resources to keep oil flowing steadily out of unstable and even hostile countries and regions.

Rather, energy security requires stemming the flow of money to oil rich regimes that are hostile to America and its allies; it requires combating climate change and preparing for its impacts both at home and abroad; it requires making international energy markets work for us and not against us; it requires standing up to the oil companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and political contributions; it requires addressing nuclear safety, waste, and proliferation challenges around the world; and more.

Democrats will halt this dangerous trend, and take the necessary steps to achieving energy independence. We will make it a top priority to reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or ten million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the amount of oil we are expected to import from OPEC nations in 2030.

Lead to Combat Climate Change

We will lead to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of collective action to tackle this global challenge. Getting our own house in order is only a first step. We will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries preserve biodiversity, curb deforestation, and leapfrog the carbon energy-intensive stage of development.

We will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. China has replaced America as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Clean energy development must be a central focus in our relationships with major countries in Europe and Asia. We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.

This challenge is massive, but rising to it will also bring new benefits to America. By 2050,global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion.Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers.

Seizing the Opportunity

It is time for a new generation to tell the next great American story. If we act with boldness and foresight, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that this was the time we confronted climate change and secured the weapons that could destroy the human race. This was the time we defeated global terrorists and brought opportunity to forgotten corners of the world. This was the time when we helped forge peace in the Middle East. This was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep.

It was not all that long ago that farmers in Venezuela and Indonesia welcomed American doctors to their villages and hung pictures of John F. Kennedy on their living room walls, when millions waited every day for a letter in the mail that would grant them the privilege to come to America to study, work, live, or just be free.

We can be this America again. This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people–and all people–in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more.

Stewardship of Our Planet and Natural Resources

Global climate change is the planet’s greatest threat, and our response will determine the very future of life on this earth. Despite the efforts of our current Administration to deny the science of climate change and the need to act, we still believe that America can be earth’s best hope. We will implement a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic change and we will set interim targets along the way to ensure that we meet our goal. We will invest in advanced energy technologies, to build the clean energy economy and create millions of new, good “Green Collar” American jobs. Because the environment is a truly global concern, the United States must be a leader in combating climate change around the world, including exporting climate friendly technologies to developing countries. We will use innovative measures to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of buildings, including establishing a grant program for early adopters and providing incentives for energy conservation. We will encourage local initiatives, sustainable communities, personal responsibility, and environmental stewardship and education nationwide.

The Republican Party Platform on Climate Change

The Republicans have set their platform on climate change. Note that the platform does not match McCain's platform. You can also compare this to the Democratic Party's platform on climate change. Here is the Republican platform, straight from the RNC:

By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term
demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate
change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the
environment.

Addressing Climate Change Responsibly

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity
to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the
scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific
research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and
reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if
consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national
security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be
global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the
economy.

The Solution: Technology and the Market

As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support
technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce
excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate
the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary
benefits climate change might offer for the economy. To reduce emissions
in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed
above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other
alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington
bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering
Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and
environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know how
and competitive markets.

International Cooperation

Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly
global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly
India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter.
It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry
burdens which are more appropriately shared by all.

Using Cash Rewards to Encourage Innovation

Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate
change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a
Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change.
Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological
developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric
carbon.

Doing No Harm

Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled
by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government. We can - and
should - address the risk of climate change based on sound science without
succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma
rather than as situations to be managed responsibly. A robust economy will be
essential to dealing with the risk of climate change, and we will insist on
reasonable policies that do not force Americans to sacrifice their way of life
or trim their hopes and dreams for their children. This perspective serves not
only the people of the United States but also the world's poorest peoples, who
would suffer terribly if climate change is severe - just as they would if the
world economy itself were to be crippled. We must not allow either outcome.

No man is an island...but the Arctic is

The Arctic passages are open and the Arctic is in a "death spiral," according to Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Visit Accuweather for more info.

Palin on energy and climate change

Updated 10/1/08

Here's what I know about Governor Sarah Palin's stance on global warming so far in her own words. I have taken the information from interviews with Palin, Alaska government sites, her own editorials, and other sources. Though the information here is consistent with what is in the climate change blogs, it's more expansive and I think presents a less caricatured image of the VP candidate. For example, Palin does appear to believe that global warming is real and promotes adaptation, but does not connect global warming to human causes, which allows her to continue to promote drilling as the main solution to energy independence. Palin's apparent platform matches the RNC platform on climate change. At the end of the day, Palin appears to me to be just as or more right wing than the current administration. But judge for yourself:

• On climate change, stated that "a changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." Believed in 2006 that global warming might be part of a natural warming cycle and warned against "overreaction." Contradicted herself in first public interview as VP candidate on 9/11/08, saying, "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that." [I just did.] According to the AP, "Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's assertion that she believes humans play a role in climate change — made in her first major interview since joining the Republican ticket — is at odds with her previous statements." AP also quotes an article from a Fairbanks newspaper interview where Palin states, "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." In interview with Katie Couric on 9/30, stated "You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it."
• On need to act against climate change, states that "man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. ... Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it."
• Signed "Administrative Order 238 creating the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet on September 14, 2007. The Sub-Cabinet advises the Office of the Governor on the preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate change strategy." Also, "On September 21, 2007, Governor Palin signed on as an Observer to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The WCI is a collaboration launched in February 2007 between the Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington to meet regional challenges raised by climate change. "
• Believes "alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop."
• Believes that drilling more in Alaska should represent the Country's energy policy and the solution to the energy crisis, and has told interviewers that "I believe that Alaska can help set an example on energy policy...We have billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas. We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact. We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress — and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add. " She has said, "Alaskans are frustrated because there is opposition in Congress to developing our vast amount of natural resources. We want to contribute more to the rest of the United States. We want to help secure the United States, and help us get off this reliance of foreign sources of energy...I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem."
• Believes the US should drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge: "these lands are locked up by Congress, and we are not allowed to drill to the degree America needs the development.When we became a state 50 years ago, we struck a deal with the federal government where we said,"Let us in a union where we will be as self-sufficient as possible." And the federal government said, "Come in, you'll be our 49th state, and you'll do it by developing your God-given resources.""
• Sued the Secretary of the Interior for declaring polar bears endangered because she wants to see more offshore drilling in polar bear habitat: "We believe that listing polar bears as such is a significant threat to development, because most live on the North Slope. (But) the biggest problem with the ruling is that we are the only state that is impacted....We've coexisted with bears for decades to no detrimental effect. Our bear population is thriving.This listing is nothing but interference from outsiders who insist on keeping Alaska from developing our resources responsibly." Believes "there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act...The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified...But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues...Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions. "
• Used funds from oil industry for polar bear study, which featured scientists also funded by the oil industry.
  
• Believes "Congress needs to lift the ban on drilling. Allow the free markets to function." States "there are even bigger sources of crude than ANWR. . . such as offshore areas like the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea. Congress can help us with those areas right now, bringing even more energy than ANWR and bringing it quicker."
• She "proposed eliminating the gas tax levied on consumers some years ago"
• Lobbied congress for earmarks to build "a natural gas pipeline. It's about a $30 billion project we're proposing right now." She also said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

Of course the climate change blogging community and the op-ed writers hate this stance. Take Tom Friedman from the New York Times:

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing
any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his
makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another
representative of big oil...

Palin’s nomination for vice president and her desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness “reminded me of a lunch I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés,” global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. “After much wine, this gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion, the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia.

What do YOU think?

Gustav: global warming or just La Niña?

Weather models and climate models don't connect. That's because the short-term influences that result in weather become chaotic after about a week and can't be connected to the larger-term forces that influence climate. For that reason, you will never know if a particular storm was influenced by global warming; however, a pattern, like more or less frequent or intense storms in a region, could be predicted by climatological models that include forcings from global climate change.

Experts believe that we are in the "middle of a major hurricane season" for two main reasons, according to the UK Telegraph:

"Leading indicators for an above-normal season during 2008 include the
continuing multi-decadal signal - atmospheric and oceanic conditions that have
spawned increased hurricane activity since 1995 - and the lingering effects of
La Niña," Dr Gerry Bell, lead hurricane forecaster at NOAA's climate prediction
centre, said, referring to a temperature fluctuation seen in Pacific waters.

The future looks even more bleak in the wake of a pioneering study three years ago at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which linked an increase in hurricane activity to rises in ocean temperature caused by global warming and climate change.

Prof Bill McGuire, Director of the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre in London said: "There is growing evidence that higher sea-surface temperatures resulting from climate change have driven increased Atlantic hurricane activity in the last few decades. Given this scenario, the locations of a number of major US cities in the hurricane belt, in particular New Orleans, Miami and Houston, are becoming increasingly precarious."

To read more about increased hurricane (and typhoon) risks from climate change, I recommend the following posts from ClimateProgress:

• Why global warming means killer storms worse than Katrina and Gustav, Part 1
• Why future Katrinas and Gustavs will be MUCH worse, Part 2