An opinion piece by our top climate scientist is always worth reading:

THE EARTH is close to passing climate change “tipping points.” Greenhouse gases released in burning fossil fuels are nearing a level that will set in motion dangerous effects, many irreversible, including extermination of countless species, ice sheet disintegration and sea-level rise, and intensified regional climate extremes.

As a society we face a stark choice. Move on to the next phase of the industrial revolution, preserving and restoring wonders of the natural world, while maintaining and expanding benefits of advanced technology. Or ignore the problem, sentencing humanity and other creatures to struggle on an increasingly desolate planet. Massachusetts is on the cusp of making this choice, and, barring citizen objections, is in danger of making the wrong choice on two counts.

Energy legislation in the state Senate would reshape rules designed to encourage renewable energies, modifying them to encourage energy generation from coal. A proposed amendment to the “Green Communities Act” – in most respects a good piece of legislation – provides incentives for coal gasification technologies without requiring carbon capture and sequestration. If passed, Massachusetts would be promoting projects that increase greenhouse gas emissions, just when we need to reduce emissions!

Meanwhile, the Department of Environmental Protection granted draft approval and is poised to grant final approval to a project extending the life of an 80-year-old coal plant with coal gasification that would not capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions. Prolonging the life of NRG Energy’s coal-fired power plant in Somerset would be a tragic mistake. This plant was scheduled to shut down in January of 2010 or to “repower” as a new cleaner plant. NRG now proposes to do neither. Instead, it wants to retain its dependence on dirty fuel, converting the plant’s boiler to “plasma gasification” of coal….

The appropriations omnibus bill just passed through Congress “recommends that the Export-Import Bank provide 10 percent of its financing capacity to promote the export of clean energy products and services.” This was a recommendation by many groups, including the Center for American Progress (CAP).

Having supported more than $400 billion dollars of U.S. exports during the past 70 years, the Export-Import Bank is one of the most powerful tools at the U.S. government’s disposal for spurring innovation and economic growth.

But in yet another backward-looking strategy typical of this Administration:

In fiscal year 2006, Ex-Im promoted $1.8 billion in traditional fossil fuel exports but only $9.8 million in renewable energy exports.

As CAP notes:

This new provision is an important first step toward shifting this ratio in favor of the industry that has the greater growth potential: clean energy.

Kudos to all concerned (and yes, 10% is not enough, but it is a start — and it beats the heck out of 0.5%).

Now that our New Year’s Eve party hats are put away, its time to look to the next year in the battle against global warming. In the year 2007, some good things did indeed happen on this front. Measures significantly improving car mileage standards and promoting the growth of renewable fuels were signed into law. But if 2007 was a year that could be considered in some ways good, then 2008 needs to be a year that will be great.

Nothing else will do. The cataclysms of one million square miles of ice melting in the Arctic, a several fold increase in the rate of melting tundra, and the acceleration of melting in Greenland, foretell possible feedback mechanisms that demand a faster and more aggressive clean energy revolution than we even envisioned a year ago. Whatever we thought necessary on New Year’s Day 2007 needs to be doubled in 2008.

So what will it take to make ’08 great? Three things will do the trick.

First, each of us can take some individual small step down the clean energy road. For my wife and myself, our small step was spending the last two days of 2007 stuffing insulation under our home’s flooring. It was low tech, and not particularly creative, but it promises to save several tons of CO2 over the lifetime of our old leaky, creaky, house, while keeping our toes warm in the process.

Second, George W. Bush will have to have an epiphany.

Read more

Certaintly, the N.Y. Times deserves praise for devoting one of its January 1st editorials to “The One Environmental Issue.” The opening line is well-meaning if well behind the times:

The overriding environmental issue of these times is the warming of the planet.

Actually, that was true at least 10 years ago. Given how unbelievably dire the situation has become, that sentence would be far more accurate if the word “environmental” were dropped. But I suspect it will take the NYT ed board another 10 years to realize that. The piece quickly becomes confused:

The Democratic hopefuls in the 2008 campaign are fully engaged, calling for large — if still unquantified – national sacrifices and for a transformation in the way the country produces and uses energy. The Republicans do not go much further than conceding that climate change could be a problem and, with the notable exception of John McCain, offer no comprehensive solutions.

Well, they have the GOP somewhat right — though it isn’t clear how many Republican candidates really concede the climate problem (see here and here and even here). But on what basis do they say that the Democratic plans lack specifics? They write:

… even the candidates who urge comprehensive change have not been pressed on important questions of cost: How do they intend to pay for all the new efficiencies and technologies that will be necessary? And what kind of sacrifices will they be asking of people who almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills and their greener cars?

Addressing these questions will require more courage of the candidates than simply offering up broad new visions. The voters deserve an honest accounting and the candidates should be prepared to give it.

I guess they never read Obama’s excellent plan. Everything is paid for by auctioning the carbon permits in his cap and trade system. Hillary’s equally strong and detailed plan also seems to generate the necessary funds. If you read both plans, you’ll realize that they are quite courageous. They have not gotten the media attention they deserve.
Also, if the NYT had actually read and understood either plan, they would see that it isn’t true that “people almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills” (sic — presumably they meant “for their electricity”). Both have very aggressive energy efficiencies programs based on utility decoupling and other potent and cost-effective strategies. Whether greener cars cost a lot more remains to be seen — I’ll be blogging on that later this month.

Efficiency can pay for itself — and for many of the other required carbon-saving measures — as many, such as the consulting firm McKinsey & Co, have pointed out. The country can cut GHG emissions a great deal without raising the nation’s overall energy bill — if we get serious.

Can we get all the way to 450 ppm without major “sacrifices”? That is a very good question — and it obviously depends a lot on your definition of sacrifices and your political perspective. Obviously our soldiers overseas are sacrificing. But here at home we’re spending $15 billion a month on Iraq — but not raising taxes to pay for the cost. Is that a sacrifice?

The N.Y. Times does make a very important point about the media:

Read more