Geo-engineering remains at best a secondary climate strategy if you first do really aggressive CO2 reductions and keep concentrations below 450 ppm.  For now, as Obama’s science advisor put it [and reiterated to me this year], “The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects.” At worst, geo-engineering is an utterly false hope that will undercut efforts to achieve the kind of emissions reductions needed for it to have any value.  That, of course, is why conservatives love it (see here).  Still, there is no reason not to do some research, as long as one is realistic….

Climate engineering research may get green light

Hacking the planet to rein in humanity’s effect on the climate has been given a scientific stamp of approval.

The umbrella body for meteorological scientists in the US is about to endorse research into geoengineering as part of a three-pronged approach to coping with climate change, alongside national policies to reduce emissions.

New Scientist has seen the final draft of the American Meteorological Society‘s carefully worded position paper on geoengineering. The AMS is the first major scientific body to officially endorse research into geoengineering.

The document states that “deliberately manipulating physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the Earth system” should be explored alongside the more conventional approaches to climate change. Conventional approaches means reducing emissions – “mitigation” in policy-speak – and adjusting to the unavoidable effect of climate change – known as “adaptation”….

Opponents of geoengineering may be reassured to find that the statement calls for studies into the social, ethical and legal implications of geoengineering solutions, and for methods to be developed in a transparent fashion.

Riding a Wave of Culture Change, DOD Strives to Trim Energy Demand

Read more

Our guest blogger is climate activist Julie Erickson.

In honor of the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, youth advocates today challenged Congress to a new mission of reducing global warming pollution by 40 percent in ten years. Dressed as NASA astronauts, the climate activists attended the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s hearing on green jobs and the new clean economy. We unfurled the banner, “What Can America Do in 10 Years?” followed by this checklist:

– Put Man on Moon [Check!]

– Cut CO2 40% [???]

Wearing suits with the message, “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger,” the astronauts called for senators to tackle the climate crisis with the same ambition and urgency as their predecessors demonstrated for the Apollo project. (After we displayed our banners, the Capitol police politely escorted us out.)

Today’s mission emphasized our call for FASTER emissions reduction targets. In order to have a good chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, all developed countries must reduce carbon emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Setting this target would also the make the US bargaining position STRONGER at UN negotiations in Copenhagen this December. At best, the American Clean Energy and Security Act only reduces U.S. emissions 17-23% below 1990 levels by 2020.

In the afternoon, we’ll proceed to Senate offices to dance “around the world” and again suggest that if the US had the ambition to put a man on moon in 10 years’ time, than the nation also can cut CO2 emissions by 40 percent in the same time frame. Finally, our Apollo mission will head to the Union Station Metro stop at 5:30 pm to do our moonwalk — this time to a hot Daft Punk beat — for staffers and others passing through during rush hour:

Converting rapidly from coal-generated energy to gas is President Barack Obama’s most obvious first step towards saving our planet and jump-starting our economy. A revolution in natural gas production over the past two years has left America awash with natural gas and has made it possible to eliminate most of our dependence on deadly, destructive coal practically overnight – and without the expense of building new power plants.

So writes Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of Waterkeeper Alliance, in the Financial Times.

RFK Jr. echoes many key points of my series on gas.  There appears to be a lot more natural gas than previously thought (Part 1) and therefore unconventional gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet (Part 2), which is great for low-cost climate action, bad for coal (Part 3).  And it always bears repeating, as Part 3 discusses, that natural gas is the critical low-carbon “firming” resource that can enable deep penetration of both windpower and concentrated solar thermal power.

Interestingly, the investment site Motley Fool writes about RFK’s article:

Read more

The lead story in the WashPost today is “GOP Focuses Effort To Kill Health-Care Bills.”  But really, the story could be about climate and clean energy (see “Hill conservatives reject all 3 climate strategies and embrace Rush Limbaugh“) — or anything else.

The article notes, “William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, implored Republicans to ‘go for the kill.’ ”

The GOP reminds me of Groucho Marx in Horsefeathers — though more Groucho than Marx brother, I’m afraid:

Read more

While climate change itself will wreck indiscriminate havoc if left unmitigated, studies of American demographics show that its effects are unevenly divided. Already, the racial inequalities regarding the environment and air pollution affect millions of African-Americans’ health and quality of life:

• “In every one of the 44 major metropolitan areas in the U.S., Blacks are more likely than Whites to be exposed to higher air toxics concentrations”
• “”¦over seventy percent of African Americans [live] in counties in violation of federal air pollution standards”
• “African Americans are nearly three times as likely to be hospitalized or killed by asthma as Whites”

Recognizing the vested interest the African-American community thus has in transitioning to a clean energy economy, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has decided to actively join the energy futures fray: at the NAACP’s annual national conference this week, the NAACP passed a formal resolution pledging support for comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation.

Read more