Climate 411

Climate, Clean Energy and the State of the Union

By Sharyn Stein / Published: January 28, 2010

When I turned on the State of the Union speech last night, I planned to listen very closely so I could hear any mention of a climate and clean energy bill.

Turns out I didn’t have to work that hard. President Obama talked about clean energy — and its potential to create jobs — throughout the speech.

Here are some of the most relevant quotes:

We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow … There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.

Germany’s not waiting.  India’s not waiting … They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

We need to encourage American innovation … And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy.  You can see the results of last year’s investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives.  That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.  It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.  And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year.  This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.  I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.

The speech got a good reception from most environmental groups. EDF’s president, Fred Krupp, said this:

President Obama got it right when he said we must pass ‘a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.’ The American people want less imported oil, less pollution, and more jobs – and Congress can deliver all three by passing a real clean energy bill that puts a limit on carbon pollution.

If we’re serious about creating jobs, beating the Chinese and Europeans in this new global market, and cutting imported oil, then Congress needs to move forward without delay and pass strong clean energy legislation. A traditional bill that completely exempts big companies from any limits on carbon pollution is a non-starter; it simply will not solve our most pressing national challenges.

With all the divisions in Washington, this is an issue that should unite the two parties.  Both nominees in the last presidential election supported limits on carbon pollution, and legislators of both parties are now working to find a bipartisan solution. Americans want Congress find a way to cut imported oil, cut pollution, and create new jobs. Now it’s time to get the job done.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Comments are closed

New Ad Shows Broad Support for a Climate Bill

By Sharyn Stein / Published: January 22, 2010
Thumbnail image of the ad showing broad support for climate change

Click the image for a larger view of the ad.

Anyone who doubts that climate legislation has broad-based support should take a close look at a new ad that’s running in the Wall Street Journal and Politico.

88 groups put their names — and logos — on the line to call for a bipartisan energy bill.

EDF is a participant of course, along with other environmental groups like NRDC and the Pew Center. But some of the others may surprise you: the Christian Coalition, Michelin, Campbell’s, the AFL-CIO,  Toyota, Owens Corning, Whirlpool.

The message from all of them:

We believe it’s time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bi-partisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security and limits emissions, as it preserves and creates jobs. It’s a question of American leadership.

If you don’t have a paper handy, take a closer look at the large and diverse group of clean energy champions here.

Posted in News / Read 10 Responses

Poll Results: The People Want a Climate Bill

By Sharyn Stein / Published: January 21, 2010

Climate and clean energy legislation got strong support today from an unlikely source — Frank Luntz, the prominent Republican pollster.

Luntz’s firm, The Word Doctors, just finished a national poll of more than 1,000 American voters.  He unveiled the results of that poll [PDF] this morning at a news conference with EDF President Fred Krupp and NRG Energy’s CEO David Crane.

The bottom line: Americans are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment.

Luntz says:

Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think. A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening.  This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike.

And even those that don’t still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.

(You can play the audio of the entire event at the bottom of this post.)

Here are some of the most interesting results from the poll:

  • A majority of Americans believe climate change is occurring and is caused at least in part by humans. Only a small minority — 18 percent — do not believe climate change is real. (Those numbers stay about the same if you call it “global warming.”)
  • 57 percent agreed with the statement: It doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t climate change. It is still in America’s best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe.
  • National security is the main reason that people support cap and trade. Across the demographic board, people liked the idea that clean energy will: liberate us from this oil addiction.

This is the latest in a long line of polls that show Americans want clean energy. But Luntz’s reputation as longtime Republican advisor may give this one extra political resonance.

Luntz said his data shows  a bipartisan consensus on the issue and provides a road map for getting legislation passed.

EDF’s Fred Krupp summed it up:

Frank’s research proves that that no matter who Americans voted for in 2008, in 2010 they want to see Congress act on climate legislation.  It’s a national security priority, it’s a crucial means to reduce pollution, and it’s essential to creating permanent American jobs.

[powerpress url=”http://www.edf.org/audio/krupp-conf-01212010.mp3″]Complete audio recording of the news conference.

Posted in News / Read 14 Responses

Stimulus Plan? Taking Transit can save you $10,000

By Kathryn Phillips / Published: January 21, 2010
Take transit and save money! Photo by Flickr user Steve Wampler.

Take transit and save money! Photo by Flickr user Steve Wampler.

What would you do if you were suddenly given $10,000?

I’ve been ruminating that question since last week’s release of APTA’s monthly “The Transit Savings Report.” The report figures that a transit rider living in Los Angeles could save $10,052 a year by avoiding the costs of parking, fuel, insurance and general auto operations. In New York, the annual savings amount to $13,765. Average savings are at $9,240.

I like round numbers, so I’d settle for just $10,000 in savings. I asked some of my co-workers how they’d spend the money. One responsible respondent said she’d pay off student loans or put the money toward a down payment on a house, and another chimed in about those student loans. One said he’d buy a bicycle (my favorite notion) and put the rest into the stock market. Two said they’d devote at least a portion of the money to travel and the other half to aid Haiti—you can see why I regard my co-workers as among the kindest folks on the planet.

One of the thriftiest among the group had a list of seven options, including paying those student loans (a common obligation around here), traveling, visiting family, and buying new clothes. One would pay a year’s worth of rent, buy a season pass at Squaw Valley, and spend what’s left on exotic—and presumably low-budget—travel. Another would fix his roof. Maybe he would have had a different answer if it wasn’t raining.

There’s a trend here. Saving money by riding transit can stimulate the economy. A car that spends most of its time parked (and eating fuel when it’s rolling), can really strain a personal budget. It can prevent us from doing what we think is most important.

Not everyone has access to good transit, and lately, with transit cuts spreading across the country, access to good transit is in danger. But imagine what a difference it would make if the Senate passed a jobs bill that put a lot of new money into keeping buses and light rail running, and bus and rail drivers employed? Jobs would be saved; transit riders could continue to depend on transit; people could think about spending on things other than parking and fuel. They could replenish student loan banks, jumpstart the housing market, and help the people of an island nation that’s been devastated by an earthquake.

They could do all these things and go about their everyday travel in a way that reduces air pollution from transportation. Under perfect conditions, a full conventional bus could displace 30 to 40 carbon-fueled car trips.

The Senate hasn’t released its version of the jobs bill yet, but the House version falls short of ideal in the transportation funding area. It provides about $6 billion to urban transit, and of that, only 10 percent, or about $600 million, is available for operations. I say only because $600 million is less than one year’s worth of operations funding cut by the state legislature and governor in California during the last few years of disappointing budget deals. That’s just one state.

If Congress wants to save jobs, it needs to give a bigger share of the transportation pie to transit and allow more of it to be spent keeping transit drivers at work. Then the rest of us can start putting our annual transportation savings to work and get the economy rolling again, even as we reduce pollution.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Clearing Up Confusion: The Recent Cold Snap and Global Warming

By James Wang / Published: January 20, 2010

Our bitter cold winter has become one of the hottest topics of conversation in America.

Specifically, people are talking about how a severe cold snap can occur at the same time as global warming. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the debate on the Washington Post website.  In this post, I’ll try to clear up two of the issues that emerged from that debate:

  1. What does a particular cold spell say about global warming, and
  2. If the recent cold spell doesn’t disprove global warming, does that also mean that other kinds of extreme weather, like heat waves, aren’t caused by global warming?

Climate versus weather

All of the Post’s panelists were careful enough to explain the difference between weather and climate: Climate refers to the average weather over a long period. For the most part, they did not fall for the common mistake of interpreting a cold spell as evidence against global warming.

Here’s what’s been happening with the weather recently: There have indeed been below-average temperatures recently in much of the eastern U.S. and in parts of Europe, Russia, northern China, and northern India. But at the same time, there were above-average temperatures in the western U.S., eastern Canada and Greenland, some other parts of the Arctic, North Africa and Central Asia, as this map shows.

NOAA map of worldwide temperatures

This distinct pattern of temperatures was caused by an unusually persistent version of an atmospheric flow pattern known as a “Greenland block.”  This Greenland block diverted frigid Arctic air far to the south in eastern North America and Europe. (More about it on the Weather Channel: “Why So Cold? Blame the Greenland Block.”)

It’s important to look at weather events like cold snaps in context—we can have a relatively brief spell of cold weather in certain regions even while the global climate is warming.  All the evidence shows that the world overall has been warming over the past several decades. (See a chart in a post on this same topic by Lisa Moore in 2008.)

So how do we know if the climate is warming? We look at a wide range of long-term trends. Along with rising air and ocean temperatures, the other signs of a warming climate include rising sea level, retreat of glaciers in most regions, rapid shrinkage of summer sea ice in the Arctic, and shifts in species distributions and seasonal behavior.

Global warming does cause more extreme weather

Although the Post’s panelists were accurate on the first issue, there could have been more discussion on the fact that global warming does have an effect on some kinds of extreme weather. One of the panelists even claimed that extreme events like heat waves cannot be used as evidence of global warming. That is wrong, so let’s look at how the frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather events are expected to increase under global warming.

Records indicate that there has already been an increase in intensity and frequency of heat waves and heavy rainfall in many parts of the world over the past several decades.  (See “Frequently Asked Question” number 3.3 excerpted from the 2007 IPCC report [PDF].)  Why? Global warming drives a rise in average temperature and atmospheric moisture, promoting more heat waves and torrential downpours. On top of that, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns caused by global warming are also thought to contribute to stronger heat waves.

There will still be variations from year to year, but on average, these extreme events will increase over time as the Earth warms.  On the other hand, extremely cold temperatures are becoming less common — but can still occur — as heat builds up in the climate system.

Of course, individual weather events should not be blamed on global warming, just as an individual cold snap doesn’t disprove global warming. EDF has been careful not to attribute individual events to global warming.  Instead, we point to examples of what we expect to see more and more of in the future if we don’t fight global warming.

And with the trends in extreme weather we’re already seeing, that future ain’t lookin’ pretty.

Posted in Extreme Weather, Science / Read 15 Responses

Obama Announces Climate Deal in Copenhagen

By Sharyn Stein / Published: December 18, 2009

Right now, President Obama is announcing that leaders at the Copenhagen climate summit have reached what the White House calls a “meaningful deal.”

Details are just starting to emerge, but those inside the Bella conference center, including EDF president Fred Krupp, have gotten a first look at the agreement. Fred says:

Today’s agreement leaves the U.S. in control of its own destiny. We have always known that the path to a clean energy economy goes through Washington, D.C. As President Obama said today, strong action on climate change is in America’s national interest.

It’s the Senate’s turn to speak next. Whether we move ahead with a common-sense plan to create new manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and reduce dependence on foreign oil is not up to other countries; it’s up to us. A year from now we can be further ahead or further behind, and the Senate will make the difference.

Today’s agreement takes the first important steps toward true transparency and accountability in an international climate agreement. The sooner the U.S. speaks through Senate legislation, the sooner we can set the terms of engagement for talks to come.”

Posted in International / Read 13 Responses