The bad news is that even modest global warming likely leads to dangerous sea level rise. The worse news is that continuing to do nothing about greenhouse gas emissions leads to levels of warming and sea rise that are unimaginably catastrophic.

Stabilizing at 2C (3.6F) warming leads to 2.5 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and a devastating 8 feet by 2300, a new analysis finds. The figure at the right is long-term sea level rise under scenarios of very aggressive CO2 mitigation (via one of the new studies, Schaeffer et al. in Nature Climate Change).

Stabilizing at 3C (the RCP4.5 scenario, close to 550 ppm CO2 levels) leads to about 3 feet of SLR by 2100 and over 11 feet of SLR by 2300. That would still require a huge amount of clean energy deployment in the coming decades (see here).

Staying near our current greenhouse emissions emissions path — the “reference” case below, which is not the worst-case scenario — still leads to over 40 inches of SLR by 2100 and then seas continue to rise 7 inches or more a decade!

Rate of sea level rise (in mm/year) under various emissions scenarios.

How future generations would adapt to endlessly rising seas at that rate (or higher) is hard to imagine — even if it were not accompanied by many other simultaneous catastrophes, including Dust-Bowlification, ocean acidification, and ever-worsening extreme weather. The time to act is now.

The SLR analysis above is based on a “a semi-empirical approach” using historical data (see RealClimate). It does not factor in the possibility of nonlinear disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which is already occurring.

Below the jump is a Climate Central excerpt on this study and two others that just came out, which suggest sea level rise could be even greater in key parts of coastal America — JR.

Read more

New fuel economy standards proposed in 2011 by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation could create 570,000 jobs between 2017 and 2030, according to a report released today by the BlueGreen Alliance.

The report was produced in association with the Sierra Club, the United Auto Workers, the National Resources Defense Council, and the American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy, and can be found here.

The new standards have a number of benefits. First, the innovation necessary to meet the mandated 54.5 mph average by 2025 will create 50,000 jobs in design, manufacturing and development. The roughly $68 billion saved by consumers at the pump due to the standards could help create another 500,000 or so jobs. ACEEE Executive Director Steve Nadel described it this way in a call announcing the report:

“First, jobs are created to design and produce more efficient cars, and the parts used in those cars. Second, consumers save money on their fuel bills, and respond those fuel savings in ways that help the economy to grow.”

And that’s why the unions have supported new fuel standards.

“Production of fuel efficient vehicles is good for jobs in the U.S…Jobs are being created by bringing new technology into production,” said UAW International Representative Brad Markell today.

These smart regulations create a pathway for more private investment, will decrease harmful greenhouse gas emissions, increase national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil (by an amount equal to today’s combined imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq), and serve as a model of job creation and environmental awareness for other industries.

According to the Sierra Club’s Executive Director  Michael Brune, the new standards are the “single biggest step that any president has ever taken to slash our oil dependence.” Brune believes that Obama’s bet on the auto industry is “already paying off” and that the U.S. will produce the most efficient cars and trucks in the world. According to Peter Lehner, the Executive Director of the NRDC, the standards will make the U.S. the “global leader  in the auto industry.”

ACEEE’s Nadel said the new fuel standards will increase American GDP by $75 billion annually, without even counting the benefits of pollution reduction, decreases in dependence on foreign oil, and increased export potential. Though he admitted that some jobs in the energy sector could be lost due to decreased fuel demands, a net increase in jobs in other sectors would make up for the shift.

In fact, even though new, more efficient vehicles will be more expensive than those currently marketed, savings from fuel efficiency will outweigh that cost by a factor of two.

Max Frankel is a senior at Vassar College and an intern at the Center For American Progress

Moving into the election season, Michigan has become ground zero for the disinformation campaign against renewable energy.

In an effort to expand the state’s renewable energy targets, a coalition of environmental groups and local businesses is gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative that would increase Michigan’s renewable electricity standard to 25 percent by 2025.

But that’s not sitting well with large power companies and the Chamber of Commerce.

Yesterday, a group backed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and two of the state’s largest utilities rolled out a campaign to stop the ballot initiative before it truly begins.

The group’s messaging, which contradicts real-world experience with renewable energy deployment in Michigan and surrounding states, is typical for the heel-dragging, climate change-denying Chamber of Commerce. Even with the overwhelming positive economic evidence and the diverse range of businesses supporting an increase in renewable energy in the state, the Chamber and its utility allies say they’re ready to put up a big fight.

They’re not fighting with much evidence on their side.

Last week, 120 companies operating in Michigan signed a letter supporting the ballot initiative increasing the state’s renewable electricity standard. Proponents of the initiative say the increase in renewable energy would spur billions in economic activity and potentially create tens of thousands of jobs.

In February, Michigan’s Public Service Commission issued a report showing that the state’s current renewable electricity standard requiring 10% penetration by 2015 had spurred already $100 million in economic activity. The report also showed a remarkable trend seen throughout the rest of the country: the cost of wind, solar, and hydro “is cheaper than a new coal-fired generation” in the state.

That changing equation is making renewable energy far more cost-effective for ratepayers. In nearby Iowa and Minnesota — states with the second and fourth most wind energy respectively — a dramatic increase in wind installations has had a minimal impact on rates. In fact, a recent study in Iowa showed that the state’s 20% wind penetration was keeping rates below the national average — while also supporting more than 3,000 manufacturing jobs in the state.

Even with all this real-world experience, CARE for Michigan, which is tied to the state’s utilities, has undertaken a slick new campaign to stop the ballot initiative.

Read more

by Daniel Weiss and Jorge Madrid

Yesterday the public comment period ended for the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon pollution standard for new, unbuilt power plants. This is the first limit on carbon pollution ever proposed for a stationary, industrial source. This process began on April 2, 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant.’” Based on this decision, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and responsibility to set limits on carbon pollution from mobile and stationary sources.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the first step in the process required the EPA to determine whether carbon pollution “endangers the public health and welfare.” In 2008 then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson made such a determination. He wrote President George W. Bush that an endangerment finding was warranted under the science and the law:

Your Administration is compelled to act on this issue under existing law.

That case [Massachusetts v. EPA] combined with the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding … the state of the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does ‘it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research.

Then-Administrator Johnson also told the president that the EPA must regulate carbon pollution from power plants and other sources. President Bush declined to act but that did not alter the legal or scientific reasons compelling action.

After President Bush’s inaction, it fell to the Obama administration to review the science and make the endangerment finding. After nearly a year of review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson followed science and the law by issuing an endangerment finding for carbon and other pollutants. It observed that air pollution “endanger[ed] both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

On April 13, 2012, the EPA culminated years of work by proposing to limit carbon pollution from new coal-fired power plants. New plants that generate electricity from natural gas would likely meet the new standard without additional controls. New coal-fired power plants, however, would have to reduce their carbon pollution by 40 percent to 60 percent, which may make building these proposed coal plants uneconomical.

Coal companies and many large utility companies are challenging the carbon pollution standard for new power plants. To build support for the EPA’s proposal, the Center for American Progress Action Fund—CAP’s sister organization—joined a campaign urging Americans to submit their public comments to the EPA. These comments urged the EPA to finalize the proposed carbon pollution standard and establish a pollution reduction standard for existing power plants and other large industrial sources.

All told, there were more than 2 million comments submitted to the EPA that urged these actions. This is a record for any previous EPA regulatory proposal. Now it’s up to the EPA to finalize the proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants, and then commence work on reductions for existing plants. Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today unanimously ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) legal authority to limit industrial carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans’ health.

Carol M. Browner, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, and Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress said:

“The Court’s decision should put an end, once and for all, to any questions about the EPA’s legal authority to protect us from industrial carbon pollution through the Clean Air Act. This decision is a devastating blow to those who challenge the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change and deny its impact on public health and welfare.”

These rules were challenged in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. Plaintiffs included the American Petroleum Institute and other major sources of industrial carbon pollution.

The Court affirmed the following EPA policies:

• The Climate Pollution Endangerment Finding, which determined that the latest science demonstrates that climate pollution endangers human health.   This finding was first made by then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in 2008, following the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. President Bush refused to make this finding, but the Obama administration complied with the law by making it in 2009.

• The Clean Cars Standards that limit carbon pollution from motor vehicles, primarily by modernizing fuel-efficiency standards for passenger cars and light trucks.  In addition to reducing carbon pollution from vehicles by 6 billion tons, these standards will help families save thousands of dollars on gasoline and decrease our dependence on oil.  The standards are supported by U.S. auto makers and the United Auto Workers union, among others.
• The Timing and Tailoring Rules for carbon pollution standards for new power plants and industrial sources allow EPA to phase-in requirements for cost-effective pollution reduction standards for large industrial emitters first, which covers 70 percent of U.S. carbon pollution.   EPA would not establish reduction standards for bakeries, farms, doughnut shops, and other small pollution sources.

The court dismissed the petitions by industries that would have undercut these rules, including petitions filed in May 2011 by the American Farm Bureau (AFB), and the American Petroleum Institute, asking the court to overturn the timing and tailoring rule. Just last week during a House Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing about EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau President Carl Shaffer complained about the uncertainty of EPA’s carbon pollution standard. He said that “court challenges to the tailoring rule could make permitting requirements immediately applicable to farmers and ranchers, if the rule is overturned.” Although AFB was a plaintiff to this law suit seeking to overturn the tailoring rule, the Court of Appeal decisively rejected its petition.

As the court’s opinion stated, “This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

by Jürgen Trittin, Chairman of Parliamentary Group of Germany’s Alliance ’90/The Greens

This text was first published in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on June 7, 2012. Translation by Craig Morris, Petite Planète.

We are witnessing a campaign. Germany’s four biggest power corporations, which still control 80 percent of power generation, are discovering their bleeding heart. They are suddenly concerned about the 200,000 welfare recipients who could not pay their power bills – the very people whose power they then cut off.

Rainer Brüderle is the leader of the Libertarian Liberal Democrats (FDP), who recently tried to make people believe that those who are now too poor to pay for energy are living high off the hog from welfare. Recently, Brüderle has supported the Big Four energy companies and called for an end to Germany’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG), which created the country’s feed-in tariffs. And this propaganda even seems to make sense to otherwise critical consumer advocates and charitable organizations. Astonishingly, none of them are asking why the price of electricity on the power exchange is dropping even as the retail rate reaches new heights – why renewables continue to get cheaper, but customers continue to have to pay more.

Fast growth at low prices

Obviously, the reason is not German feed-in tariffs, which have served as a role model for similar policies in more than 50 countries across the planet. After all, no system provides for such fast growth at such low prices. German President Joachim Gauck recently said that feed-in tariffs remind him of a “planned economy,” but his description fits the kind of quotas used in the UK better – and yet, that’s exactly what libertarian Brüderle wants. If we compare prices, we see that a kilowatt-hour of renewable power is more expensive in the UK than it is in Germany. That explains why RWE and Eon prefer to invest there; with German feed-in tariffs, you simply cannot get a 15 percent return.

That also explains why the renewables sector in Germany largely consists of midsize firms. And that’s exactly what bothers Brüderle. By attacking the EEG, he is trying to protect market shares for the oligopoly of the Big Four. The EEG made Germany a market leader. It led to the creation of more than 340,000 jobs, and it did so with less financial support than has been paid for either coal power or nuclear power. Since the EEG was adopted, feed-in tariffs have continually dropped. For wind, they are now below the cost of new coal plants; for solar, below the retail rate. Clever legislation made these tremendous cost reductions possible. It wasn’t just well intended – above all, it was well done.

Poorly done

The EEG became expensive when Economic Ministers Rainer Brüderle and Phillip Rösler passed new regulations that were neither well intended nor well done. A bonus was paid for a type of biomass – liquid manure – that mainly helps factory farms. A special “market bonus” was also introduced. It costs a lot of money – half a billion euros per year for consumers – and does no good. And the expected increase in the surcharge to cover the cost of renewables is also the result of exceptions that Brüderle’s party, the FDP, came up with – and which Justus Haucap, the chairman of Germany’s Antitrust Commission, says would lead to “tremendous windfall profits.” It’s almost as though they’re trying to break the law on purpose.

Yet, the industry and Germany are doing well. We have great supply security. Renewable energy has brought down prices on the power exchange considerably. In particular, energy-intensive industry benefits because it does not have to pay the surcharge for renewable power. But things are different in France, a bastion of nuclear power. Although the country imports power from Germany, the government had to call on the French to conserve electricity last winter. The price of power on the power market rose to more than a euro per kilowatt-hour; at the same time, it was below 10 cents in Germany. Photovoltaics in particular is putting a damper on Eon and Co.’s profits from their old coal plants. They used to be able to sell coal power at a hefty markup during times of peak demand. Unfortunately for them, the sun shines on numerous solar roofs now at midday, so a lot of solar power is generated then.

Well done

As we move our power supply towards renewable sources, we have to bid farewell to the idea of baseload power provided by inflexible central power plants. If we want to have safe, reliable electricity – especially for industry – we are going to need smart grids, more storage, and flexible capacity. Baseload power plants are anything but smart, so they are a bad investment now. Too bad the Big Four’s fleet of power plants consists almost entirely of that. In other words, renewables are a challenge to business models at RWE, Eon and Co. That’s what worries Brüderle, but it should make consumer advocates and charitable organizations happy. After all, it is the markets domination of the Big Four that drives up our bills while exchange prices drop. By weakening their stranglehold, we strengthen consumers.

Yes, the energy transition has a price tag. German firms are currently investing 20 billion euros in the energy transition each year. On the other hand, the price of a barrel of oil rose from 100 to 120 euros in 2011, which also cost Germany 20 billion euros. I would rather invest that 20 billion in affordable electricity than give it to multinational companies. If we not only have the best of intentions with our laws, but also get them right, everyone benefits.

This text was first published in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on June 7, 2012. Translation by Craig Morris, Petite Planète.

A round-up of the top climate and energy news.

According to Craig Allen, a research ecologist with the United States Geological Survey in Los Alamos, New Mexico, forests in the region have not been regenerating after the vast wildfires that have been raging for the last decade and a half. [NY Times Green]

Dr. Allen, who runs the Jemez Mountains Field Station at Bandelier National Monument, says those forests are burning into oblivion and grasslands and shrublands are taking their place. “Rising temperature is going to drive our forests off the mountains,” he said.

Already choking through one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent memory, Colorado found itself dealing with a new series of blazes this week, driven by a relentless heat wave that has threatened to further fan the flames. [New York Times]

The Koch brothers’ attempted takeover of the libertarian Cato Institute has come to an end, at least for now. [Los Angeles Times]

If you think there are flooding problems in the North Shore now, just wait — it’s going to get a whole lot worse, according to a study released Sunday by the U.S. Geological Survey. [Salem News]

The cold financial climate of the last three years has made little impact on public attitudes towards global warming, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll. [Guardian]

With the cost of solar photovoltaic cells falling — prices dropped by 50% last year and are now a quarter of what they were in 2008 — renewable-energy advocates say India is ripe for a solar-power revolution. And it could use it. [Time]

As the climate changes, scientists are documenting measurable shifts in the natural world — from a tremendous loss in Arctic sea ice and an increase in extreme weather like drought, floods and heatwaves, to the migration of plants and animals to new latitudes. [National Public Radio]

The billions of pounds the Bank of England is pouring into banks in a bid to get lending flowing should have strings attached to ensure that much of the liquidity is directed towards greening the economy, the UK’s former chief scientific adviser has urged. [Guardian]