Physics World asked me to write for a special issue on Energy, Sustainability and Climate Change.  The article, “Publicize or perish,” is online and reposted below with links.

The fate of the next 50 generations may well be determined in the next few months and years. Will the US Congress agree to a shrinking cap on greenhouse-gas emissions and legislation to achieve the transformation to clean energy? If not, you can forget about a global climate deal. But even if the bill passes and a global deal is achieved, both will need to be continuously strengthened in coming years, as the increasingly worrisome science continues to inform the policy, just as in the case of the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances.

The International Scientific Congress on climate change held in Copenhagen in March, which was attended by 2000 scientists, concluded that “Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized.” That would mean that by 2100 there would be atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide of more than 1000 ppm, total planetary warming of 5 °C and sea-level rises probably on the high end of recent projections of 1-2 m followed by a rise of as much as 2 cm per year or more for centuries. We would also see one-third of inhabited land reaching dust bowl levels of aridity, half or more of all species becoming extinct, and the oceans increasingly becoming hot, acidic, dead zones. And if we do not change course quickly, the latest science predicts that these impacts may be irreversible for 1000 years.  [See "Intro to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water.]

In short, the fate of perhaps the next 100 billion people to walk the Earth rests with scientists (and those who understand the science) trying to communicate the dire nature of the climate problem (and the myriad solutions available now) as well as the ability of the media, the public, opinion-makers and political leaders to understand and deal with that science.

Disinformation and scientific illiteracy

Read more

Deutsche Bank’s important new report, The Peak Oil Market: Price dynamics at the end of the oil age begins with a quote that is one of my pet peeves:

“The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”  Sheikh Yamani, Saudi Oil Minister, 1962-1986.

Great quote in a peak oil report except for one tiny point — we still use a lot of stones.  In fact, given that we have 6.7 billion people on the planet, I’m quite certain that we use a lot more stones than we did in the Stone Age.  I’m almost as certain that, as the DB report says, we will be using a lot less total oil in a few decades.  So the quote doesn’t work, and the report, while dead on in many parts, is still a tad off.

SUPPLY:  We expect increasingly chronic under-investment in new oil supply capacity. We believe that concentration of remaining oil reserves into OPEC government hands will lead to under-investment in new supply and higher volatility in regulatory and fiscal regimes, and more volatile pricing. Consumer governments are adding to uncertainty with total lack of clarity on environmental legislation/regulation outcomes. That deep uncertainty in supply and demand will likely disincentivise private sector oil supply investment, exacerbating overall oil under-investment, and leading to peak oil supply within the next six years. We see market maximum capacity at 90mb/d in 2016 – just 5% above 2009….

After a final price peak implied at $175/bbl in 2016….

Hmm.  The price spike sounds right.  But I don’t think the ultimate reason will be inherently chronic underinvestment — there’s simply too much money to be made at projected oil prices for producers.  And I don’t think the reason will be uncertainty surrounding regulation — again, there’s simply too much money to be made of projected oil prices and, over at least the next decade, climate regulations will focus more on coal than oil.

The reason for the price jump is that we’re running out of the easy supply.  That’s certainly the view of all the peakers I know.  And it’s the view of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and its chief economist, Dr. Fatih Birol (see World’s top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us”):

Read more

*third if you count anti-scientific websites like WattsUpWithThat, as Wikio does.

But should I put their little widget near the top of CP as Watts does?  It would, of course, say ’3′ on it (for now).

I had not heard of these Wikio rankings, but I periodically check WattsUpWithThat for the latest in denier talking points — yes, it’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it, and it shouldn’t have to be you!  What do I see but yet another website recognizing WattsUp as a science blog, when it is the exact opposite, as evidenced by his reprinting and endorsing a broad-based attack on the integrity of the entire scientific community and by his generally pushing disinformation [see "Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)" and links below].

Still, notwithstanding Wikio’s refusal to draw a distinction between science and antiscience, the ranking is a relatively objective, as described here:

Read more

The IEA report is here.  Photo is of wind turbines in Xinjiang, China.

International Energy Agency Sees Gains in China

Little good can be said about the worst economic slump since the 1930s, but it has produced at least one piece of positive news: the downturn will make it a bit easier to slow the rise in emissions responsible for climate change.

The International Energy Agency made that prediction in a report Tuesday on global greenhouse gas emissions. Because of slower economic growth, the agency slashed, by 5 percent, its estimate of how much greenhouse gas emissions will be produced in 2020.

But the energy agency also cautioned against complacency, stressing that reaching a deal in climate talks to be held in Copenhagen at the end of the year is crucial to limiting the rise in global temperatures.

Another reason for cautious optimism, the report said, is that China will be able to slow the growth of its emissions much faster than commonly assumed because of its rising investment in wind and nuclear energy and its newfound emphasis on energy efficiency.

But avoiding some of the worst consequences of climate change will still require significant and rapid investments in clean technology, and more meaningful cuts in carbon emissions, the report said.

“This gives us a chance to make real progress toward a clean-energy future, but only if the right policies are put in place promptly,” said the agency’s executive director, Nobuo Tanaka.

As a result of the economic slump, global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, are expected to decline by 3 percent this year, the steepest drop in the 45 years according to figures compiled by the agency. That compares with an average growth of 3 percent a year over the last decade.

The report outlines how governments can achieve additional cuts through energy efficiency and investments in clean technologies. The goal is to keep global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Meeting that target will require reducing emissions by 23 percent in 2030 compared with what they would otherwise be, the agency said.

“The message is simple and stark: if the world continues on the basis of today’s energy and climate policies, the consequences of climate change will be severe,” Mr. Tanaka said.

And while it may not be news to CP readers — see EIA stunner: By year’s end, we’ll be 8.5% below 2005 levels of CO2 “” halfway to climate bill’s 2020 target – I’m glad to see Bloomberg pick up this story:

Drop in CO2 Justifies Tough Carbon Caps

Read more

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, who last year called for further “scientific inquiry” into climate science because of a “cooling trend,” today rebuked Apple for leaving his organization, claiming they did not understand the Chamber’s “21st century approach to climate change“:

I am sorry to learn of Apple’s resignation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.

Apple — recognized as the most innovative company in the world — had criticized the Chamber for not having a “more progressive stance” on climate change, saying, “We strongly object to the Chamber’s comments opposing the EPA’s efforts to limit greenhouse gases.”

Apple is right. The Chamber of Commerce has a 19th-century stance on global warming, opposes regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and has become an enemy of a clean-energy economy. The Chamber has promoted the work of climate skeptics on the radical fringe from 1992 to the present day. This year, the Chamber called for a “Scopes monkey trial” on climate science, attacking the scientific evidence of the threat of global warming pollution to the public welfare in a legal filing against the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Chamber claims to “support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change,” but has virulently opposed any such legislation, including McCain-Leiberman in 2003 and 2005, Lieberman-Warner in 2007, and Waxman-Markey in 2009.

Furthermore, the Chamber has set an impossible standard for climate legislation: the Chamber’s “support” for federal legislation is “conditional on an international agreement that requires full international participation,” knowing full well that such a treaty is impossible without U.S. legislation. Worse, the Chamber is opposed to the United States setting tariffs on countries that don’t limit their greenhouse gases even if we do, claiming that would “set off a trade war.”

The energy industries of the 19th century — coal and oil — are controlling U.S. Chamber of Commerce energy policy. We can only hope that the future of the United States is determined instead by 21st century companies like Apple, and the hundreds of others that are calling for strong climate action today.

The letter in full: Read more

At today’s Clean Energy Economy Forum, Carol Browner, Director of White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, said that it would be a “big mistake” if Congress passed a clean energy bill without a cap on emissions.

Browner made clear that the country needs a comprehensive bill that creates a carbon market to incentivize clean energy over the long-term.  This is the first public statement I’ve heard from the White House pushing back on the statements by some Senators (not Majority Leader Reid) that have suggested they would prefer to do an energy-only bill.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu was even more blunt.

Read more

Memo to media:  The ever-shrinking Chamber of Commerce is not “the voice of business.”  Indeed, we now know that besides being anti-scientific, it is anti-democratic, not even bothering to consult with its own Board of Directors on its own climate policy — in direct contradiction to its stated policy.

Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports the amazing news:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce staff decides the trade group’s climate and energy policy positions without approval from the board of directors, Nike Inc. charged as it formulated a plan to call for greater chamber openness.

Nike, which last week left the chamber’s board of directors but decided to remain a chamber member, described a lack of transparency at the group that conflicts with how the chamber describes its operations. Beaverton, Ore.-based Nike said it is determined to work for changes in the group.

“We just weren’t clear in how decisions on climate and energy were being made,” said Brad Figel, Nike’s director of government relations. “They’re not being made at the board-of-director level, because we’re a member of the board of directors. We were not consulted. We’re convinced that’s not really where the action on climate change is being made.”

As previously documented, the vast majority of the major businesses on the Chamber’s board who have a publicly stated their position on climate legislation support strong action (see here).

Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, defended the Chamber’s anti-democratic denialism:

Read more

The Clean Energy Economy Forum will be webcast live at www.whitehouse.gov/live starting this morning (Wednesday) around 9:15 am (I think).  Details at the end.  What follows is a Wonk Room repost.

Hundreds of business executives are descending on Washington this week in support of a clean energy economy. Calling for investment in American jobs instead of global warming pollution, the CEOs participating in the Business Advocacy Day for Jobs & Competitiveness “” an effort organized by the new We Can Lead coalition “” will tell the Senate to take action with strong climate legislation like the Clean Energy Jobs Act introduced last week by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Several of these companies have written a public letter to Congress and the administration calling for “comprehensive legislation to cut carbon pollution”:

We need you to swiftly enact comprehensive legislation to cut carbon pollution and create an economy-wide cap and trade program. We support this legislation because certainty and rules of the road enable us to plan, build, innovate and expand our businesses. Putting a price on carbon will drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and will create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy.

Carol Browner, the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are confirmed speakers before the We Can Lead companies, who will be lobbying Congress on Wednesday, October 7 on behalf of strong climate legislation. Many of the participants in the lobby day have endorsed the House legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and others have called for even stronger action. In addition, the CEOs are “scheduled to eat dinner with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday, and to hold a White House meeting with Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Wednesday morning.”

Politico reports that “28 companies and labor and green groups “” including United Technologies, Johnson & Johnson, GE, Weyerhauser, the Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Action Fund “” are launching” a million-dollar ad campaign “in support of comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation.”

We Can Lead is a collaboration between the Clean Economy Network, Ceres, and other business groups including:

Read more