Climate 411

NOAA Report Confirms: Yes, the World Is Warming

By James Wang / Published: July 30, 2010

A report released this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides new evidence that global warming continues relentlessly.  The report comes after climate science was found to be solid in several official investigations into the so-called “Climategate” controversy, and it adds even more urgency to the need to reduce global warming pollution to prevent severe impacts in the future.

The report, “State of the Climate in 2009,” was authored by more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries.  It confirms that each of the past three decades was warmer than the last, with the 2000s being the warmest in the 150-year record.

The latest data from all the regions of the world are presented for a variety of climate indicators.  Ten of the indicators most closely related to surface temperature all support the idea that the Earth is warming.

Specifically, seven indicators are rising, indicating a warming world:

  • air temperature over land
  • sea-surface temperature
  • air temperature over oceans
  • sea level
  • total heat content of the ocean
  • humidity
  • tropospheric temperature (in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface)

And three indicators are declining, also indicating a warming world:

  • Arctic sea ice
  • glaciers around the world
  • spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere

These climate indicators represent many independent lines of evidence for global warming.

This report comes on top of a set of recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences that provide yet more evidence that human-produced pollution has caused the warming observed over the past several decades and that continued warming poses serious and costly risks to society.  Together, these latest scientific reports show that global warming is happening and will only get worse unless we seriously cut back our global warming pollution.

As evidenced yet again by the new NOAA report, the science is very clear:  We must begin cutting our emissions now to avoid even more dramatic cuts later, since global warming gases stay in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries and keep accumulating there. A delay of two or three years will make the necessary pollution cuts more severe and expensive.

My colleague Chris Scott will in touch regarding sending the proposal to you. If you need to contact us at all next week, please call or email Chris on +44 1722 320596 or chris.scott@headscape.co.uk.
Also posted in Science / Comments are closed

From the blogosphere: the latest on the climate bill

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: July 22, 2010

Not surprisingly, a number of blogs today talked about Senator Reid’s (D–Nev.) statement that he’ll move forward with a somewhat scaled-back energy bill. The legislation is slated to include a response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and energy efficiency incentives, but omit a carbon cap or many of the broader climate change measures that were part of the House version of the bill. For the state of play, CleanTechies includes a helpful bulleted list of “highlights of legislation introduced in the Senate that may contribute language to the final package.”

The Vine questions the political strategy of splitting a response to the oil spill from a broader energy and climate bill while acknowledging that an oil spill response is far more likely to receive the bipartisan support necessary for passage. Post Partisan regrets that the Senate is passing on what it calls “the most efficient policy available – placing a price on carbon.” On Firedoglake, David Dayen says the oil spill response must move, irrespective of the fate of the larger climate and energy bill.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

From the blogosphere: DOE does cool, Google goes with wind

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: July 21, 2010

CleanTechies joined several of their online colleagues in enthusiastically reporting on cool roofs, which “could help reduce global temperatures and offset the heat from as much as two years of global greenhouse gas emissions,” according to a new report from the Berkeley Lab. The report found that “increasing the reflectivity of roofs and pavement in cities with populations greater than 1 million would have a one-time cooling effect equivalent to reducing global CO2 emissions by 57 billion metric tons.” And more good news: “As part of an initiative to promote a transition to cooler surfaces, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu directed all department offices to install cool roofs on any new buildings or when replacing old ones.”

Another widely-discussed piece today was about internet giant Google. As reported in Huffington Post, “Hot on the heels of its $38.8 billion investment in two wind farms in North Dakota, Google has just signed a 20-year contract with an Iowa wind farm that enables the search giant to purchase wind power at a set rate over the next two decades.” Treehugger goes on to praise the contract for not only taking a step toward the company’s stated goal of becoming carbon neutral, but also for providing critical funding for clean energy projects.

Also posted in Energy / Comments are closed

A Cap on Carbon is a Private Sector Stimulus Bill

By Sharyn Stein / Published: July 21, 2010

About one million new jobs in the clean energy field have been created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus bill. That’s according the latest report from the Council of Economic Advisers.

That’s good news for the clean energy economy, and for those Americans who are looking for work. But we can’t rely on tax dollars to finance growth indefinitely. The stimulus bill is a jump start, not a long-term fix.

We need to harness the power of private sector investment if we hope to see long-term growth and job creation. And the best way to do that is through a clean energy bill with a limit on carbon pollution.

That’s what EDF’s president Fred Krupp says in today’s column by New York Times writer Tom Friedman:

As Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense Fund, notes: U.S. utility companies today “are sitting on billions of dollars in job-creating capital — but they will not invest in new energy projects until they have certainty on what their future carbon obligations will be. In just one state, Indiana, there are 25 power plants 50 years old or older. The fleet needs to be modernized, and Senate paralysis is keeping it from happening. A recent study from the Peterson Institute projects annual investment in the sector in the next 10 years would rise by 50 percent as a result of climate legislation — an increase of nearly $11 billion a year.”

That’s new employment from a private sector stimulus.

Political analyst Joe Lockhart is saying almost the same thing. Lockhart is quoted in the Atlantic’s blog in a piece, Cap-and-Trade: The Next Best Stimulus?

We’re rapidly approaching the end-date of our near-term economic solutions – and it’s not clear that we have a policy to get private dollars moving again once those solutions end. That makes movement on a utility-first cap on carbon emissions essential.

The bottom line: If we pass a climate and clean energy bill with a carbon cap, we’ll create jobs without increasing deficit spending.

Also posted in Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Comments are closed

From the blogosphere: new green jobs, a proposal on low carbon fuel standards, and VoteVets supports clean energy legislation

By Rebecca Rasch / Published: July 20, 2010

Treehugger and CleanTechnica both wrote on the new Council on Economic Advisors report finding that nearly 1 million new jobs were created by the stimulus bill, and “one of the areas where Recovery Act funds are stimulating the most private investment is the clean energy sector.”

In response to reports that senators are considering adding a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) into the pending climate and energy bill, Michael Levi blogged about what impact this might have on the legislation, potential obstacles and opportunities. While he lauds the goal of reducing emissions, he recommends adding a price ceiling on the tradable permits refiners, blenders, and importers would be required to hold.

Grist posted the new ad from VoteVets, in which Brigadier Gen. Steven Anderson, “who served under Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, calls clean energy legislation not only a military priority, but an American mission.”

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Climate Change Legislation, Economics, Policy / Comments are closed

The Evidence Continues to Pile Up: Climate Legislation is Affordable. The Time to Cap Carbon is Now.

By Nat Keohane / Published: July 20, 2010

As the debate on climate legislation gears up in the Senate, evidence continues to accumulate that a climate bill will be affordable and provide a much-needed boost to our economy.

A new analysis released by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the comprehensive climate and energy legislation introduced by Senators Kerry and Lieberman (the American Power Act or APA), confirmed that under the bill, the American economy would continue to grow robustly, and the cost to households would be minimal.  Here are the facts:

  • Under climate policy, U.S. GDP would grow by a third over the period 2008-2020, and would nearly double by 2035. A “business as usual” scenario with no climate policy would add only a tiny fraction to output — just two-tenths of a percent (0.2%) in total over the next two decades.  To put this in perspective, GDP is projected to reach $27.8 trillion by New Year’s Day 2035 under business as usual; under climate policy, it will get there by the middle of February.
  • Under climate policy, U.S. employment is projected to grow 8% by 2020 and 22% by 2035, relative to 2008.
  • The estimated cost to the average American household is $167 in the year 2020 (in 2009 dollars) – less than six dollars a month per person.  (The EIA also reports an annualized figure of $206 over the entire period.)
  • Estimated electricity prices would be only 4% higher in 2020 under the policy than they would be without it.
  • Allowance prices in 2020 and 2030 are even lower than EIA projected under the House-passed climate legislation (HR2454).

The EIA’s analysis also points out that the vast majority of reductions would come from the electric power sector.  That’s relevant to current debates, as the Senate is currently considering a scaled-down version of the cap included in APA that would only cover the power sector.  Under such a policy, allowance prices would be lower — making household costs and other economic impacts even smaller.

All of EIA’s projections are consistent with an array of estimates from the most credible analyses available, in particular, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  EPA’s estimates for the cost to the average American household are comparable to EIA’s (amounting to just a few dollars a month for the average individual American).  And just last week, CBO reported that APA would reduce future deficits by approximately $19 billion over the next decade.  It also estimated even lower allowance prices under APA than under HR2454, which CBO also projected would cost the average American just a few dollars a month by the year 2020.

That is a small investment in a clean energy economy that will create jobs, reduce pollution and increase America’s energy security.  And it’s always important to remember that all of these analyses only look at one side of the ledger – they do not take into account the huge costs of inaction on climate change.

Studies like those from EIA, EPA, and CBO confirm that we can readily afford a comprehensive climate and energy bill that would boost our economy, reduce our dependence on imported oil and help avert dangerous climate change.  There is no more time to waste – the Senate needs to pass a cap on carbon now.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics, Policy / Comments are closed