I have been asked this question about daylight saving time (DST) many times. I have long believed it was not an energy saver — even though that is how it is typically justified. Turns out there is quantitative proof.

For those who are interested in this relatively obscure issue — I doubt Congress would change DST on the basis of this or any other study — you can read a very good article in the Wall Street Journal. “Springing forward,” as we will do March 9, “may actually waste energy”:

Read more

Avoiding climate catastrophe will probably require going to near-zero net emissions of greenhouse gases this century. That is the conclusion of a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) co-authored by one of my favorite climate scientists, Ken Caldeira, whose papers always merit attention. Here is the abstract:

Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO₂ levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO₂ emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.

Since the rest of the article is behind a firewall, let me extract a couple of key findings:

Read more

Just in case you thought conservatives might be warming up to climate action and clean energy with the impending nomination of John McCain as the GOP a standardbearer, uber-conservative columnist Bob Novak explains otherwise in a column titled, “How Not to Run for Vice President.”

As a non-conservative, I know I can’t do justice to Novak’s “logic” by summarizing it, and I suspect many readers would think I was taking his argument out of context, since it seems so … well … judge for yourself. I’ll just reprint most of it in total:

Minnesota’s Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty, carefully prepared his plan for controlling greenhouse gas emissions to present it at the annual winter meeting of governors in Washington. That effort coincided with Pawlenty’s fast-rising prospects to become Sen. John McCain’s choice for vice president. But behind closed doors, governors from energy-producing states complained so vigorously that Pawlenty’s proposal was buried.

Pawlenty’s position as chairman of the National Governors Association may prove to be his undoing. While party insiders sing his praises as ideal to be McCain’s running mate, leading conservative Republican governors have been less than pleased with him. Pawlenty has collaborated with the association’s Democratic vice chairman, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, on a fat economic stimulus package as well as the energy proposal.

Hours after Pawlenty’s energy plan was derailed, McCain himself was privately urged by GOP governors not to appear to be anti-coal or anti-oil. The upshot of a busy Saturday at the J.W. Marriott Hotel downtown was that Pawlenty came across as somebody considerably different from what McCain needs to calm conservatives. He left the nation’s capital as a less attractive vice presidential possibility than he was when he arrived.

And they say progressives have litmus tests!! Apparently if you support strong government policies to save the next 50 generations from a ruined climate, that’s a non-starter. No doubt that’s why McCain continues to soft-pedal his climate rhetoric, repeatedly (and absurdly) claiming a cap-and-trade system is not a “mandate” — a word as verboten for conservatives as “evolution.” To the rest of the world, Pawlenty is a rock-solid conservative in a key swing state:

Pawlenty, 47, has long been talked about as a good fit for the 71-year-old McCain. He is the most conservative Minnesota governor since Theodore “Tightwad Ted” Christianson in the 1920s. Elected to two terms (albeit narrowly) in a slightly blue state, Pawlenty is seen by supporters as a plus for McCain in the Democratic Upper Midwest if added to the ticket.

He gets high grades from conservative fanciers of Republican horse flesh, such as Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and Pawlenty’s fellow Minnesotan, Vin Weber. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist approves of Pawlenty’s record, save for one hike in cigarette taxes.

But he has committed two apparently unpardonable conservative sins — he believes humans are changing the climate, and he won’t shill for coal and oil interests:

Read more

When it comes to the climate, corporate talk is very cheap, as Business Week reminds us. Who in the climate community wasn’t excited with the announcement a year ago by a bunch of big companies launching the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP):

A diverse group of U.S.-based businesses and leading environmental organizations today called on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The group said any delay in action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future.

OK, we were a bit suspicious when they let General “total crock of shit” Motors in.

But still they embraced stabilization at “at a carbon dioxide equivalent level between 450-550 parts per million” and a cut of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of 10% to 30% within 15 years of enactment and 60% to 80% by 2050!

Now we learn from Business Week that “Despite their eco-rhetoric, some USCAP members are supporting efforts to undermine restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.” Every silver lining has a cloud of pollution:

Three high-profile USCAP members–General Electric, Caterpillar, and Alcoa–also sit on the board of the Center for Energy & Economic Development (CEED), an Alexandria (Va.) group formed in 1992 that opposes regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions. In April, 2007, CEED’s board unanimously signed a position paper that, in part, described as “draconian” one federal climate bill that would require a 65% reduction in emissions by 2050….

And seven months after the launch of USCAP, seven months after Duke CEO James E. Rogers endorsed the USCAP’s efforts saying, “The science of climate warming is clear. We must act now.”

Duke joined Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a group hatched by CEED in 2000 that advocates expanded coal use. ABEC has tripled its budget this year, to $35 million, and is mounting campaigns to support construction of coal plants in several states

Duke itself is building two coal plants, even though, as Businessweek itself points out, “More coal-fired power plants would make USCAP’s proposals almost impossible to achieve.”

Time for the environmental groups who are part of USCAP — this means you NRDC and ED — to tell the member companies to practice what they preach or get out. To paraphrase Harry Truman, if you can’t stand the heat, stop warming the damn planet!