Top Stories

President Obama was correct when he declared two weeks ago that the choice we face in addressing climate change is “between prosperity and decline.” The competitive advantage we stand to gain by “becoming the world’s leading exporter of clean energy” is incalculable. But, as China’s rapid expansion of its solar and wind industries shows, the competition is fierce and we’re already behind the curve. Chinese officials said yesterday that the giant nation will far exceed its 2020 wind and solar targets. They expect to more than triple their wind capacity goal, resulting in 100 gigawatts of wind power by 2020, and surpass by five to tenfold the target set for solar. These are sobering numbers. Obama said, “The nation that leads the world in creating new energy sources will be the nation that leads the 21st-century global economy.” We have some serious catching up to do.

China triples wind power capacity goal

China has more than tripled its target for wind power capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2020, likely making it the world’s fastest growing market for wind energy technology, state press said yesterday.

China is aiming for an annual wind power growth rate of 20 percent for the foreseeable future, Feng Junshi, an official with the National Energy Administration, told a Beijing conference, according to the China Daily.

China solar set to be 5 times 2020 target

Read more

[Please send me any case studies of companies, buildings, and factories in the last 10 years that have cost-effectively reduced and carbon emissions. I am, as always, looking for well-documented cases where a systems approach to energy and carbon achieved deep savings and productivity gains.]

Ten years ago next month I published the first collection of detailed case studies, some 100 in all, of how businesses were cutting energy use and boosting productivity while reducing pollution:  Cool Companies.

The few times that I have posted case studies here, many people have been surprised by the savings that real companies have achieved (see for instance the Dow Chemical energy contest results in “Energy efficiency, Part 2: The limitless resource” or “Car plant cuts energy costs $627,000 with 2-month payback (!) “” with DOE help“).

The myth that reducing greenhouse gas emissions has a high cost for U.S. businesses is one of the greatest impediments to strong climate action.  Yet all of the major economic studies of climate understand and model large potential savings (see “Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost — one tenth of a penny on the dollar“) — although they haven’t modeled savings as large as the best companies have achieved.  That macroeconomic analysis needs to be bolstered by more microeconomic success stories in order to be as compelling as possible.

In short, I think it is time once again to start publishing case studies.  I ultimately plan to publish a number of new case studies.  But for now let me start with some old ones.  Sadly, the overwhelming majority of companies, buildings, and factories have still not done what the best did a decade ago as documented in my book.  So the stories and strategies remain relevant.  Let’s start with an overview of some the best cast studies:

Read more

UPDATE:  I have gotten confirmation that my segment is in.  Post your comments here after the show.  I’ll provide some backstory tomorrow.

No, I won’t be talking to Dave.  Alas.

A segment called “Andy Kindler Talks to Climate Change experts” is scheduled to air tonight.

Now, I’m told “there is always a small chance that the piece could get edited out between tape and air, but for now it’s in.”

Plus, none of the people involved have seen the final cut so they don’t know if I’m in or out.  I hope to know before air time.

If I’m in, it is probably some rather silly stuff, which I’ll comment on after I see what they do.

Be sure to watch! Even if I’m not in, the segment should be fun and funny.

I got a lot of responses to my first Memo to James Hansen on his ill-conceived and unhelpful opposition to Waxman-Markey.  Needless to say, it gives me no joy to criticize the nation’s top climate scientist, a man who inspired me to write my book and this blog, a man whose work is reprinted more than anyone else’s on this blog (see partial list of links at the end).

I discuss below what we can learn from the experience with the global effort to save the ozone layer, which also began with a far-too-weak effort that was strengthened over time, much as I expect a U.S. climate bill like Waxman-Markey will be.

But first:  I wasn’t going to post again on Hansen, but then I saw that WattsUpWithThat, perhaps the country’s top anti-science blog, had reposted Hansen’s entire new attack on cap-and-trade (see Jim Hansen calls Cap and Trade the “Temple of Doom”).

Now Anthony Watts is one of the hard-core deniers.  Not content to simply dispute the science with disinformation, he publishes and republishes attacks on climate scientists like Hansen himself.  Indeed Watts said ealier this year that Hansen is “no longer a scientist” and called on NASA to fire Hansen.  But then Watts routinely smears all climate scientists, approvingly reprinting denier manifestos that claim global warming “is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind” — see Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS).

To all those who think my post or my word choice was inapproprite, I ask, what exactly should I do when someone like Hansen publishes a post titled “Worshipping the Temple of Doom“?   He uses language that is more appropriate for attacks on deniers than on the many serious people struggling to craft a politically possible piece of energy and climate legislation:

Read more

Speaking at an event meant to oppose Democratic clean energy legislation, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) warned corporations calling for the United States to take action on global warming to “keep their powder dry.” Grist’s Kate Sheppard asked Pence after the GOP mock climate hearing yesterday what he would say to the corporations in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP) who have testified that a mandatory cap on global warming pollution is needed. After trying to avoid the question, Pence told companies that support a green economy to “keep their powder dry” as the GOP attempts to preserve Bush-era energy policy:

Um. I, I just would say that any American who is prepared to endorse a national energy tax that there’s a better solution. Uh, that they should keep their powder dry. And uh, take their case to the American people that they don’t need, particularly during this very difficult time in the economic life of our nation, to raise the energy cost on our businesses and on American families.

Watch it:

Unfortunately for climate deniers like Pence and his fellow members in the GOP American Energy Solutions Group, corporate leaders aren’t heeding his warning, because they know the “national energy tax” scare is just a lie. As Grist noted, “the House heard the leaders of Duke Energy, ConocoPhillips, and DuPont ask for a cap as recently as April 22.” Politico reports that Nike has been telling the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “to take a more progressive stance on the issue of climate change.” And Exelon Corporation, one of America’s largest electric utilities and another US-CAP member, is featured in a new advertisement today from the Environmental Defense Action Fund calling for a carbon cap as a part of comprehensive clean economic policy:

Part 1 looked at the “Rise of the Green Dragon?” Yet, even as China aggressively pursues world leadership in key clean technologies like solar and wind, it has also announced plans to keep expanding coal use at a pace so rapacious it would single-handedly finish off the climate no matter what we and the other rich countries do.  And China’s rapidly growing emissions remains a major issue for many members of Congress who support domestic climate action (see “Does a serious bill need action from China?“) and a major talking point for those who don’t (see “The U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate“).

That is why multiple stories about the possibility of serious action from the world’s biggest carbon polluter are so encouraging.  For instance, last Friday, Reuters reported:

Chinese state thinktank researchers will soon issue preliminary proposals for a carbon tax that may one day become part of the government’s efforts to tame growing greenhouse gas emissions, experts told local media.

Su Ming, deputy director of an institute under China’s Ministry of Finance, said the research on a carbon tax had been requested by that ministry and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the proposal may be published “within a month,” the National Business Daily reported on Thursday….

“At a time when calls for the globe to control emissions of carbon dioxide are growing louder … promotion of environmental taxes is much needed,” Su said, according to the paper.

And last month, the UK’s Guardian reported this remarkable story:

Read more

I’m hoping readers will write a comment to Andrew Grin.  We need a lot more 10th-graders like him.  Here he is with his “converted 2005 Hyundai Tucson electric vehicle” (details here).

We don’t need to build new dirty coal plants (see FERC chair on new nuclear and coal plants: “We may not need any, ever.”)  Nor should we (see “Intro to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water“).  But some myopic mid-western states want one last deadly fix — albeit a fix that could last many, many decades and ultimately cost ratepayers billions of dollars.  In Kansas, the former Governor had been leading an effort to bring sanity to the state (see “Gov. Sebelius stuck in coal-powered version of Groundhog’s Day“).  But with her departure, the new governor caved in to this new coal plant faster than … well, faster than a collapsing coal mine (see deal details with spin here and without spin here).  Before I could blog on this, I received an email from an Overland Park 10th Grader, Andrew Grin.  After receiving an OK from his (very proud and justifiably so) father — “Andrew showed me what he wrote you. I totally agree and would be happy to have the post on your blog. Andrew is on top of the green movement and  already working with some very influential political players who deal exclusively in energy” — I am reprinting it below.

While the Kansas move is a tragic one, I find reassurance in knowing we have a new generation of smart, passionate activists coming up.  It is the Andrew Grins of the world whose health and welfare we are imperiling with our myopic greed.  It is our moral obligation to make sure we hand them a world that is not irreversibly ruined.

Dear Climate Progress:

I am sad to say that just days after our wonderful governor Kathleen Sebelius was swore in as HHS Secretary our new govern, Mark Parkinson,
has cut a deal with Sunflower Electric Power Co. to build one 895 megawatt coal plant (of which only 200 megawatts will come to Kansas).

Read more