Climate 411

Antarctica’s Glacial Melt

There should no longer be any doubt. Climate change is here, and it is happening. 26,000 broken heat records this summer speak for themselves.

Extreme weather events hit home. Another consequence of climate change, by contrast – rising sea levels – often seems far away and far off.

“Far away” is easily dismissed. U.S. coasts are as much in danger as sea shores anywhere else on the planet.

“Far off” often seems tougher to address. After all, seas have only risen by inches so far. Projections say we could see three or more feet by the end of the century.

Even right now, though, we’re seeing the evidence of sea level rise. Antarctic ice sheets have been melting to the tune of 24 cubic miles of melt water per year, every year, since 2002.

That is a huge number, but a fairly abstract number. So The Globalist designed a quiz to make the giant quantity feel a bit more real. EDF was honored to help with the research for the quiz.

See if you can answer the question:

If you were to take the melt-off from Antarctica’s ice sheets over the past decade (2002 to 2012) and pour it into a California-sized Jell-O mold, how high would the water rise?

The right answer might surprise you. Hint: Think Paul Sturgess, the world’s tallest professional basketball player.

And check out The Globalist quiz for more details.

Posted in Arctic & Antarctic, Extreme Weather, News, Oceans, Science / Read 1 Response

Finally, A Good Record High! Car Fuel Efficiency in 2012

The summer driving season is in full swing and I’m sure many drivers are still recovering from the gas-price whiplash we’ve faced this year. 

The good news is that the U.S. has been making some really smart choices and significant strides recently to improve the fuel economy of cars and trucks. That helps Americans save money at the pump, reduces our country’s dependence on oil, and reduces harmful carbon pollution.

I retired my own clunker early this year after some disturbing sounds started emanating from its engine. I went shopping for a new car, and I was delighted to see that the new cars being sold are much more fuel efficient than when I bought my clunker.

I noticed that even fuel economy levels between model years of the same car are noticeably improved. That demonstrates that we are making continual, yearly improvement in fuel efficiency now.

So I wasn’t surprised to see this new analysis from Baum & Associates. It finds that the first half of 2012 set a record high in fuel efficiency for new vehicles.

Here are a couple of key findings from the analysis on the first half of 2012:

  • The average fuel efficiency of new cars sold was 23.8 miles per gallon (mpg)
  • Since 2011 fuel, economy has improved by 1.1 mpg
  • That 1.1 mpg improvement happened while sales increased at a larger rate than the economy

The Baum & Associates report also shows that consumers also had more choices across all types of vehicles to get higher fuel economy in the first half of 2012. It looked at “popular nameplates” – cars that had sales of at least 30,000 annually. Take a look at this chart from the Baum and Associates report:

(Chart: Summer 2012 Fuel Economy Analysis, July 2012, Baum & Associates) 

This progress has been driven largely by new fuel economy standards for cars enacted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2010.

Industry supported DOT and EPA’s efforts and got straight to work improving fuel economy to meet the model year 2012 to 2016 standards.  Those standards require a fleet-wide average fuel economy of 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Over the lifetime of these vehicles, these standards will:

  • Save American families $3,000 in fuel costs (model year 2016 vehicle)
  • Reduce oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels
  • Reduce carbon pollution by 960 million metric tons

Even more exciting, new standards to improve average fleet-wide fuel efficiency of our cars to a whopping 54.5 mpg by 2025 are expected to be finalized this summer.

By 2025, the combined existing and anticipated new standards are estimated to:

  • Save American families more than $8,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of a new vehicle
  • Reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day
  • Reduce carbon pollution by more than 6 billion metric tons

American consumers are supporting better fuel efficiency in cars, mostly because of the substantial long-term savings on gas.

The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) just did a new poll. They found that 88 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. should reduce oil consumption, and 86 percent said cutting consumer costs is an important reason why.

Dr. Mark Cooper of the CFA said:

Record spending on gasoline for American families, combined with consumer demand for better mileage and a broad political consensus over higher national standards, are driving faster improvements in fuel economy than at any time since the oil price shocks of the 1970s.

He added:

The 54.5 mpg by 2025 standard will be one of the most important consumer protection measures to be adopted in decades.

Of course, there are other vital reasons to increase fuel efficiency standards for our cars, besides the fact that we’ll save lots of money.

By 2025, oil savings from the combined fuel economy standards (for cars and trucks model years 2012 to 2025) will be substantially more than the amount of oil we imported each day last year from Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia combined.

Our cars account for about 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption. They also account for nearly 20 percent of all U.S. carbon pollution. 

Although there is still much work to be done to reduce our dependence on oil and our dangerous carbon pollution emissions, the success so far of the car standards provides a testament to the innovative spirit of American industry. It’s proof that we can achieve our emission goals while fostering economic growth.

Posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Mexico’s historic climate law: an analysis

While environmental issues were not center stage in Mexico’s recent election, Mexico’s new president, whether he is yet aware of it or not, will inherit a tremendous opportunity for win-wins on environmental stewardship and combating the country’s pressing economic challenges through Mexico’s new climate law.

Mexico’s new president will hold a great deal of power in transforming Mexico into a clean energy economy, thanks to the country’s sweeping new climate law. (Photo credit: Flickr user Esparta)

The new General Law on Climate Change allows Mexico to deploy economically efficient mechanisms (like the development of emissions trading) that offer enormous opportunities for reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and could truly transform Mexico into a 21st century, clean energy economy. The country’s presumed president-elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, and his administration will hold a great deal of power in both making this a reality – and making it their own.

Outgoing President Felipe Calderón signed the legislation into law just days before June’s G-20 Summit in Mexico and the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. It sets out ambitious, but achievable, mitigation goals and establishes critical machinery for setting the country on a sustainable, low-carbon development path.

But like many pieces of broad and potentially transformative legislation, much will be determined through the details of its implementation.

While the law is landmark in many ways, some key elements – such as its national targets for reducing emissions and the option to develop a domestic emissions trading system – are not mandatory, nor does the law itself spell out specific sanctions for not meeting those targets.

Absolute, legally binding caps are the surest way to achieve Mexico’s goals of reducing carbon emissions; given the law’s lack of such a cap, the absolute strength of the law and whether it accomplishes its mitigation goals will depend on political will and leadership. (View a translation of the law’s relevant provisions)

Summary: Major provisions in Mexico’s climate bill

Among other ambitious, though some voluntary, measures, the General Law on Climate Change (LGCC) aims to increase renewable energy use; sets ambitious goals to curb domestic emissions; and establishes a high-level climate commission that is authorized to create a domestic carbon market.

The law lays out clear federal authority to develop national-level policy, planning and specific actions for mitigation under a national climate change program. It provides a critical framework and a clear mandate for aligning national policies and programs across ministries and agencies in support of coherent mitigation and adaptation policy.  It also requires the Government to develop short, medium, and long-term policy plans.

Major components of Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change include:

  1. Goal to increase renewable energy use: The Ministry of Finance and relevant energy agencies will develop a system of incentives to favor the use of renewable energy by no later than 2020; the law also establishes goals for increasing electricity generation from renewable sources, including an aspirational target, or goal, of 35% of electricity generation coming from renewable sources by 2024.
  2. Ambitious, economy-wide emissions-reductions goals: The law sets a goal of reducing Mexico’s greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below business-as-usual levels by 2020, and 50% below 2000 levels by 2050.  These are the same as the aspirational, long-term emissions reductions (mitigation) goals Mexico pledged under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  3. National climate change information system: The law requires mandatory emissions reporting and the creation of a public emissions registry covering emissions sources from power generation and use, transport, agriculture, stockbreeding, forestry and other land uses, solid waste and industrial processes.
  4. Emissions trading system: The law authorizes the Environment Ministry to establish an emissions market that can include international transactions between Mexico and any countries with which it enters into emissions trading agreements.
  5. High-level climate change commission: The inter-secretarial climate change commission (CICC) established in the law will contribute to the formulation and approval of the national climate change policy. The CICC will be composed of heads of a range of ministries, including: Environment; Agriculture and Livestock; Rural Development, Fisheries, and Food; Health; Communications and Transport; Treasury; Tourism; Social Development; Governance; Oceans; Energy; Education; Finance and Public Credit; and Foreign Affairs.
  6. Climate change fund: The new fund will allow the federal government to collect and channel resources from domestic and international sources toward domestic climate change activities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and adapting to the changing climate (adaptation).
  7. Expanding the National Institute of Ecology’s mandate to include a major focus on climate change: Much additional technical and policy work will be conducted under the new National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INECC), formerly the National Institute of Ecology.

Analysis

Overwhelming multi-party support in both houses of the Mexican Congress this spring bodes well for the future of the climate law, which was three years in the making. The votes that turned the bill into law came from all major parties – including large swaths of the presumed president-elect’s own party; the bill passed in the lower house 280-10 and the Senate 78-0.

Now most of the policy and regulatory power will depend on the political will of a few key federal ministries – largely led by the Environment Ministry (SEMARNAT) and the Energy Ministry (SENER) – along with a broader array of ministries that will make up the climate change commission.

Since its earliest iterations, the legislation has undergone changes that reflect compromises to address concerns of some industries over such comprehensive legislation. These changes mainly insert stipulations about consideration of cost impacts, economic well-being, and global competitiveness of the Mexican economy into decisions on climate change policy and programs.

While these stipulations could provide barriers to some actions, they may also represent opportunities for real economic benefits.  Many of the key, large-scale mitigation actions available to Mexico provide long-term cost efficiency and economic benefit, particularly in the energy sector.

Mandatory absolute caps on greenhouse gas emissions are the surest way to achieve Mexico’s mitigation goals. Lacking these, Mexico’s new law is still an important step forward, in part because economic realities are likely to lead Mexico toward adopting economically efficient market-based approaches because:

  1. Mexico could cut the cost of its mitigation targets in half by instituting a domestic mandatory cap-and-trade system. EDF’s preliminary analysis based on the World Bank’s estimates indicates that Mexico could reach its 2020 target for one-half the anticipated cost by implementing a mandatory cap and allowing domestic carbon trading. Further, international trading of a portion of those reductions could result in billions of dollars of revenue, even before 2020. By instituting such caps, Mexico could take full advantage of these opportunities.
  2. Mexico’s power sector has significant potential for cost-effective emissions reductions. The potential for cumulative electricity sector emissions reductions through 2030 are estimated at 1.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), according to the World Bank. The Bank also estimates more than 30% of the potential emission reductions at the relatively low price of just under $5/tCO2e could come from the power sector, and that number could jump to about 40% of the potential emission reductions if the price is just below $12/tCO2e.
  3. Mexico could reap huge energy cost savings from the law. The World Bank study predicts that Mexico’s investment in reducing energy consumption through 2030 would more than pay for itself, leading to an $8.2-billion net savings, or surplus, from lower energy costs. The net costs of reducing emissions within the sector up to 2030 and beyond could potentially be even lower given incentives provided through future international carbon trading.

With vision and political will, the president-elect can implement smart environmental and economic policy, build a 21st-century green economy and create a legacy of real action on climate change and transformative development for Mexico.

Posted in International, Mexico / Comments are closed

Hot Topic: Climate Change and Our Extreme Weather

Americans have been griping all summer about the weather. It feels hotter than usual this year.

Turns out, that’s because – it is.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just confirmed that America is enduring the hottest weather in our recorded history.

In fact, the past 12 months have been the warmest 12 months in the continental U.S. since record-keeping began back in 1895.

It’s not a coincidence either. NOAA says the odds of our record heat being a random event — rather than part of a global warming trend — are about 1 in 1.6 million.

How hot is it, really? Consider these facts from NOAA:

  • From June 1st through July 10th of this year, the U.S. broke 147 all-time high-temperature records.
  • In June of 2012, communities across the U.S. broke 2,284 daily maximum temperature records. In the week of July 1st through July 9th of this year, they broke another 2,071.
  • The average temperature in the contiguous United States was 71.2 degrees Fahrenheit this June – two full degrees above the 20th-century average.

Those scary statistics are just for the past six weeks. But our miserable June followed the blistering heat from last year.

Read all about it in NOAA’s new report, State of the Climate in 2011.)

Take a look at this partial list of cities that broke records from June of 2011 through May of 2012:

  • Detroit – 101 degrees (daily record)
  • Syracuse – 101 degrees (daily record)
  • Mitchell, SD – 102 degrees (daily record)
  • Minneapolis – 103 degrees (daily record)
  • Bridgeport, CT – 103 degrees (all-time record)
  • Denver – 105 degrees (all-time record)      
  • Newark– 108 degrees (all-time record)
  • Houston – 109 degrees (all-time record)
  • Miles City, MT – 111 degrees (all-time record)
  • Wichita – 111 degrees (daily record)
  • Little Rock – 114 degrees (all-time record)
  • Childress, TX – 117 degrees (all-time record)

We’ve included some of those temperatures in our newest EDF public service announcement, which is running on the jumbo screen in Times Square. Just in case you’re not in Times Square right now — see the ad here.

The blazing temperatures have led to other problems as well:

  • The U.S. Drought Monitor says more than 56 percent of the contiguous United States is now under drought conditions — the highest level since record-keeping began in 2000.
  • Wildfires destroyed 1.3 million acres in Colorado and across the U.S. last month.
  • Wyoming recorded its driest June ever this year; Colorado and Utah recorded their second-driest Junes.

At the same time:

  • Florida recorded its wettest June ever — thanks in part to Tropical Storm Debby, which dumped more than two feet of rain on some towns, and spawned flash floods and almost two dozen tornadoes.
  • Duluth, Minnesota also had record floods last month.
  • Large parts of the East Coast got hit by a killer Derecho storm that killed more than two dozen people; more than three million lost electricity, some for more than a week.
  • Washington, D.C. broke its record for worst heat wave ever, according to the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, these bad weather trends are not unexpected. For a long time now, the world’s top climate researchers have told us about the strong evidence of links between dangerous weather and climate change.

Here at EDF, we’ve been talking – and blogging – about the issue for a long time. It was barely more than six months ago that we posted about the IPCC report on climate change and extreme weather. Sadly, looking back at the last round of weather disasters gives our current sweltering summer a sense of déjà vu.

Greenhouse gas pollution traps heat in our atmosphere, which interferes with normal weather patterns. That means we can expect more – and probably worse – weird weather in the future.

Climate change doesn’t just mean higher heat. It means more severe and damaging weather events across the country – including more frequent and heavier rains in some areas, increased drought in others, a potential increase in the intensity of hurricanes, and more coastal erosion because of rising sea levels.

Changing weather patterns changes will affect our agriculture, water supplies, health and economy. They’ll affect every American community and, ultimately, every American.

That’s why EDF is dedicated to reducing carbon pollution.

After all the reports, and all the statistics, and all the bad weather –there’s no excuse for not fighting climate change.

Posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Science / Comments are closed

Landmark Court Decision Promotes a Carbon-Smart Economy: Another Look at This Week’s Ruling on Climate Protections

By now, you’ve surely heard all about this week’s historic court decision upholding EPA’s efforts to reduce climate pollution.

I hope you also had a chance to read my colleague Steve Hamburg’s post about how the decision reaffirmed the value of science in public policy.

There is one aspect of the court’s ruling that we haven’t discussed much yet. That’s the Tailoring Rule, and its benefits for a carbon-smart economy.

The Tailoring Rule was one of the four measures that were challenged in court. (None of the four challenges prevailed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the lawsuits against the Tailoring Rule).

The Tailoring Rule ensures smooth implementation of carbon regulations for large new (and modified) power plants and industrial sources, while excluding small emitters from regulations.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is phasing-in requirements for use of the best available cost-effective pollution controls — starting with new, large industrial emitters like power plants — while shielding smaller emitters.

Many of the petitioners in the cases that were decided this week (National Association of Manufacturers, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, and others) sought to stop EPA from using that approach.

Specifically, they tried to prevent EPA from applying the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to greenhouse gases.

(Ironically, their efforts actually put at risk the very regulatory protections intended to ensure that small sources of pollution were not inappropriately covered by greenhouse gas regulations.)

 Since the 1970’s, the PSD program has required our biggest polluters to use the best technologies to ensure that air quality is maintained. And the PSD program has already brought a reduction of greenhouse gas pollution.

EPA has issued more than 30 permits to large sources of industrial pollution across the country since January 2, 2011. These permits cover a range of industries, from biomass refineries to cement manufacturing facilities to coal-fired electricity generating stations.

In the permits issued to date, industry and permitting authorities have focused on energy efficient design. As a result, these facilities are using cogeneration equipment, cleaner fuels, leak detection and maintenance programs, and distinct manufacturing processes that enable us to have new and expanded facilities with a lower carbon footprint.

These are precisely the actions we need to as we step forward towards a low carbon economy.

Fortunately for all of us, the court strongly reaffirmed the application of the PSD program to greenhouse gases. The court decision states that:

Congress made perfectly clear that the PSD program was meant to protect against precisely the types of harms caused by greenhouse gases.

The court decision continues:

 [I]t is crystal clear that PSD permittees must install BACT [best available control technology] for greenhouse gases.

This week’s decision means that our country’s largest sources of greenhouse gas pollution will use the best available means for limiting their carbon emissions. At the same time, it means we can protect small sources of pollution from regulation, and ensure that state and local permitting authorities face a manageable work load.

EPA’s now-approved rules allow us to take action to protect our country from the harms caused by climate-disrupting pollution.

It’s one more way that this week’s court decision is a win for all of us.

Posted in Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

A Great Day for Science Too: More on the Court Decision Affirming Historic Climate Protections

On good days, the facts prevail — and Tuesday was one of those very good days.

As Fred wrote, on Tuesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. issued a unanimous, historic decision upholding EPA’s actions to reduce climate pollution.

In our press release, Fred called it a good day for the “thin layer of atmosphere that sustains life on Earth.”

He’s right of course. But our planet wasn’t the only big winner. It was also a great day for science.

The court roundly rejected challenges to EPA’s science-based finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare (commonly called the Endangerment Finding).

In the process, the court reaffirmed the importance of having rigorous, independent science as the bedrock of efforts to protect our health and environment.

The court’s eloquent statement speaks for itself:    

EPA simply did here what it and other decision-makers often must do to make a science-based judgment:  it sought out and revised existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted.  It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part consisted of “syntheses” of individual studies and research.  . . .  This is how science works.  EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.

(That’s from page 27 of the ruling. I added the emphasis.)

The court dismissed the challenges to the Endangerment Finding as without “merit”, noting that EPA relied upon an “ocean of evidence” including 18,000 peer-reviewed studies. (You can find those quotes on pages 26, 34 and 38 of the decision.)  

In dismissing this challenge the court acted in concert with our long history of relying on science-based evidence — not only to shape our health and environmental protections, but as the foundation of American innovation and ingenuity. 

EPA’s Endangerment Finding is based on an extensive review of climate change research, including assessments of climate research prepared by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The creation of these assessment reports involved thousands of scientists, reviewing thousands of articles from peer-reviewed research journals.

This massive body of research documents the effects that rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping emissions are having on our climate. It also documents the harm that climate impacts cause to human health and welfare. 

Affirming EPA’s reliance on state-of-the-art climate science, the court discussed the substantial evidence supporting EPA’s Endangerment Finding on page 30 of the decision:

To recap, EPA had before it substantial record evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases “very likely” caused warming of the climate over the last several decades. . .  Relying again upon substantial scientific evidence, EPA determined that anthropogenically induced climate change threatens both public health and public welfare.  It found that extreme weather events, changes in air quality, increases in food- and water-borne pathogens, and increases in temperatures are likely to have adverse health effects … The record also supports EPA’s conclusion that climate change endangers human welfare by creating risk to food production and agriculture, forestry, energy, infrastructure, ecosystems, and wildlife. 

The call from scientists worldwide urging swift action to curb climate-destabilizing emissions has been heard. 

EPA’s efforts to fulfill its statutory responsibility to protect human health and the environment from dangerous pollution have been resoundingly affirmed.   

It is a good day to be a scientist, and an American.

(You can read more about the court cases on our website and in my colleague Megan Ceronsky’s earlier blog on the subject. And stay tuned for more analysis of the historic decisions.)

Posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy, Science, What Others are Saying / Read 1 Response