Todd Stern at COP16 in Cancun in 2010, where the U.S. committed to a 2°C target.

By Brad Johnson, campaign manager for Forecast the Facts. [JR: I'll add some thoughts at the end.]

As climate change accelerates, it appears the Obama administration is in retreat. In an address on Thursday, the top climate negotiator for the United States rejected the administration’s formal commitment to keeping global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.

This about-face from agreements endorsed by President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 indicates a rejection of the United Nations climate negotiations process, as well as an implicit assertion that catastrophic global warming is now politically impossible to prevent.

Speaking before an audience at his alma mater Dartmouth College, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern argued that treaty negotiations based around “old orthodoxies” of a temperature threshold “will only lead to deadlock“:

For many countries, the core assumption about how to address climate change is that you negotiate a treaty with binding emission targets stringent enough to meet a stipulated global goal – namely, holding the increase in global average temperature to less than 2° centigrade above pre-industrial levels – and that treaty in turn drives national action. This is a kind of unified field theory of solving climate change – get the treaty right; the treaty dictates national action; and the problem gets solved. This is entirely logical. It makes perfect sense on paper. The trouble is it ignores the classic lesson that politics – including international politics – is the art of the possible. . . .

These basic facts of life suggest that the likelihood of all relevant countries reaching consensus on a highly prescriptive climate agreement are low, and this reality in turn argues in favor of a more flexible approach that starts with nationally derived policies. . . .

The keys to making headway in this early conceptual phase of the new agreement is to be open to new ideas that can work in the real world and to keep our eyes on the prize of reducing emissions rather than insisting on old orthodoxies. . .

This kind of flexible, evolving legal agreement cannot guarantee that we meet a 2 degree goal, but insisting on a structure that would guarantee such a goal will only lead to deadlock. It is more important to start now with a regime that can get us going in the right direction and that is built in a way maximally conducive to raising ambition, spurring innovation, and building political will.

Stern is absolutely right that the political challenge of achieving a 2°C goal is extremely high, but what is the “flexible, evolving” regime he proposes?

Read more

by Jessica Goad, Daniel J. Weiss, and Richard W. Caperton

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah—the “Four Corners” states plus their western neighbors—are home to some of the best renewable electricity potential in the country. These states have consistently sunny skies for solar power, wind-blown plains and deserts for turbines, and underground heat perfect for geothermal energy. They also have incredible potential for smaller-scale technologies like rooftop solar panels and energy efficiency improvements.

Our analysis shows these states can house clean energy projects that could realistically provide more than 34 gigawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy over the next two decades. This development could stimulate more than $137 billion in investment in the renewable energy sector, create more than 209,000 direct jobs, and provide electricity for 7 million homes. With supportive federal policies, these renewable electricity goals can be met and surpassed.

Already, the American West leads the way in construction of clean and renewable electricity projects on the ground, spurred forward by policies including state renewable electricity standards and government investments in clean technologies. A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics study reflects this success, determining that in 2010, “green goods and services” accounted for:

• 49,717 jobs in Arizona
• 338,445 jobs in California
• 72,452 jobs in Colorado
• 17,254 jobs in Nevada
• 21,267 jobs in New Mexico
• 27,948 jobs in Utah

This comes to 527,083 jobs altogether in these six states.

Such projects and employment reinforce westerners’ perspective that renewable energy is a key component of their states’ economic future. A poll this year by the Colorado College “State of the Rockies Project” found that two-thirds of voters polled said “increasing the use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power will create new jobs” in their states.

And when it came to comparing fossil fuels and renewables, western voters were far more likely to encourage more wind and solar power over coal and oil. In response to the question “which one of the following sources of energy would you want to encourage the use of here in [your state]?”, respondents answered overwhelmingly in favor of clean energy. (see Figure 1)

The clean energy revolution in these western states is already under way, and federal lands offer significant opportunity for continued and increased investment in clean electricity. The West is home to hundreds of millions of acres of federally managed public lands, which are mostly under the purview of the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. Lands open for energy development do not include millions of acres of national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, and other places protected by law.

Much of the energy development on public lands occurs on areas managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. This agency oversees a large amount of the acreage in all six states: about 17 percent of Arizona, 15 percent of California, 12 percent of Colorado, 68 percent of Nevada, 17 percent of New Mexico, and 43 percent of Utah.

Taxpayer-owned lands are already a part of our country’s clean energy revolution. In fact, dozens of solar, wind, and geothermal projects sited on public lands are either currently providing electricity or have been permitted to do so and are ready to be built. A report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory elaborated that:

With 5,200 MW of [renewable energy] authorized or approved [on Bureau of Land Management Land], and approximately 8,000 MW of additional 2011 and 2012 high priority projects, the BLM appears to be on track to meet the [Energy Policy Act of 2005] requirement of approving 10,000 MW of RE on public lands by 2012.

This is just the beginning, and many more installations could be responsibly sited and built in these states over the next 20 years, bringing economic development and job creation to the West. Additional policies are essential to turn these opportunities into reality.

To capture the full economic, energy, and public health benefits from this opportunity, the federal government should adopt four essential policies:

• A national clean energy standard of 80 percent by 2035, with 35 percent for renewables
• A clean resources standard for public lands and waters
• Renewable energy zones
• Comprehensive electricity transmission reforms to rehabilitate our aging system

Our report identifies the vast opportunities for renewable energy installations on public lands in the West, but this does not imply that we endorse their deployment on every acre. Some places are not appropriate for energy development, and instead should be managed for multiple uses including hunting, fishing, recreation, wildlife, and other such essential values. Read more

A new study conducted by researchers at the University of Washington concludes that milk production in dairy cows could fall dramatically in some areas of the U.S. due to climate change.

The researchers showed that cows, like humans, are sensitive to heat stress. In certain hot and uncomfortable conditions, cows must devote more of their body’s resources to cooling down and devote less energy to milk production. The problem is exacerbated in humid conditions. Because cows perspire to cool down, higher concentrations of water in the air makes it more difficult for sweat to evaporate. Thus, as hot and humid climates become more extreme, they threaten the productivity of dairy cows.

According to one of the researchers:

“Using U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, if you look at milk production in the Southeast versus the Northwest, its very different,” said Guillaume Mauger, a postdoctoral researcher in the UWs Climate Impacts Group and co-author of the paper. “Its reasonable to assume that some of that is due to the inhospitable environment for cows in the Southeast.”

The study projected the change in nationwide milk production out to the year 2080. Based on climate projections, the researchers suggest that by that time, cows in some locations, such as Maricopa, Arizona, could be producing as little as half the milk they produce today. Overall, the nation will be producing, on average, 6% less milk in 2080 than today.

The loss of milk production will have a major economic impact as well. The study projects that dairy losses will total over $100 million a year for some places, including Tulare, California.

There are short term fixes for overheating cows, such as shade tents and cool water sprays, which can help mitigate milk losses now. These measures, however, present new costs for ranchers dealing with the current drought.

In the long term, as the planet continues to warm, one potential option for dairy cows will be a transition from hot states to cooler states up north, at the expense of the economies of those southern states — but the northern states are going to get awfully crowded if they have to provide all the crops and dairies AND house all the people (see NASA’s Hansen: “If We Stay on With Business as Usual, the Southern U.S. Will Become Almost Uninhabitable”).

Last year’s drought and heat wave in the American Southwest cost farmers almost $8 billion. As this study shows, additional costs for southern farmers are on the horizon.

– Max Frankel

The International Energy Agency was, until recently, a conservative and staid body. When I was at the U.S. Department of Energy in the 1990s, we ignored most IEA reports, because, like the vast majority of energy forecasters, they inevitably projected that the future would simply continue the trends of the recent past.

But now, of course, if we stay on current trends, we are going to utterly destroy a livable climate and ruin the lives of billions of people. Even so, attention must be paid when a major international body is so uncharacteristically blunt, when they actually lead their website with this bombshell headline from their own news release!

Anyone who follows the IEA or Climate Progress knows that they and many others have been issuing this warning for the last year or two (see “Yes, Deniers And Confusionists, The IEA And Others Warn Of Some 11°F Warming by 2100 If We Keep Listening To You“).

And because the world just keeps blithely dumping more and more carbon pollution into the air, the leadership of the IEA has been increasingly blunt. Their chief economist, Fatih Birol, said late last year that the world is on pace for 11°F warming, and “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.” If only school children ran the world!

The IEA news release is about the recent remarks of Deputy Executive Director Richard H. Jones:

Ambassador Richard H. Jones warned that if energy policies do not adapt, enough carbon dioxide will be being emitted to reach 1,000 parts per million in the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that equates to 6º Celsius increase in temperature by the end of this century. “That’s basically Miami Beach in Boston,” he said.

Of course, 1000 ppm is also the Atlantic Ocean all over Miami Beach, so Miami beach has to go somewhere.

Kudos to the IEA for telling it like it is. Is anyone listening?

Related Post:

• IEA Report: Existing Cleantech Is The Answer To The Climate Problem And It Could Save $100 Trillion By 2050

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has been one of the fiercest critics of the Navy’s procurement of biofuels for its fleet of ships and aircraft. However, before calling the military’s $12 million R&D program for renewable fuels part of a “green agenda,” Inhofe secured millions of dollars for a company developing liquid fuels from natural gas that cost 29 times more than conventional fuel.

In 2002, Inhofe earmarked more than $2 million for the Oklahoma-based company Syntroleum, which is looking to produce gas-to-liquid fuels for military use. According to 2010 filings at OpenSecrets.org, Inhofe holds between $15,000 and $50,000 in assets through BlackRock, the largest investor in Syntroleum.

Jim Lane at the Biofuels Digest reported that Syntroleum’s fuel cost considerably more to produce than the renewable fuels used by the Navy today:

Adjusting for inflation, the $2.3 million contract in 2002 dollars equates to $2.93 million in today’s dollars, or $28.21 per gallon. Back in 2002, jet fuel was selling at considerably less than today – at an average price of 75 cents per gallon in the second half of the year, according to indexmundi.com.

Overall, the cost of the natural gas-based alternative fuel was 29 times more than the cost of conventional fuels at the time, and cost more, per gallon, in today’s dollars than the Navy’s advanced biofuels program.

Since the original contract in 2002, Syntroleum has reportedly secured nearly $6 million in contracts with the Department of Defense.

In a recent statement, Inhofe said he supports the development of alternative fuels. However, that support seems to be limited to fossil fuels. He called the Navy’s biofuels program a part of the “liberal green agenda” that could threaten “the lives of service men and women” — even while supporting a technology that was almost 30 times more expensive than conventional fuel when originally funded.

Jim Lane sums up Inhofe’s contradictory stance on renewable fuels:

There seems to be ample evidence that Senator Inhofe is intimately aware of the costs of developing and testing alternative fuels in small quantities. It appears to be a simple case of playing political games, by criticizing Dynamic Fuels for selling advanced biofuels for $26 per gallon, when the Senator himself won an earmark requiring the military to purchase even more expensive natural gas-based fuels from Dynamic’s parent.

Paying nine times as much for test quantities of advanced biofuels? “Far-left agenda.”

Paying 29 times as much for test quantities of alternatives to fossil fuels made from, ahem, more fossil fuels? “A real difference for America.”

Read more

by Matt Kasper

On Thursday, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) introduced a bill that would force fossil fuel producers to pay for their carbon dioxide emissions. It is the latest attempt by Congress to put a price on carbon.

The Managed Carbon Price Act of 2012 (MCP) would grant the U.S. Treasury Department authority to issue permits representing one-quarter ton of CO2. Unlike the cap-and-trade legislation that failed in the Senate in 2009, the MCP does not allow permits to be traded. Rather, they can only be purchased or refunded from Treasury.

McDermott said in a statement:

What seems to have fallen by the wayside is concern over the climate and how carbon emissions are playing a factor in the extreme weather conditions we have been seeing. My colleagues are seeing this in their districts. Just yesterday, the USDA said that half of the counties in the United States – 1,584 counties – had been deemed ‘natural disaster areas’ with 90% of those counties listed due to drought conditions. We can’t keep ignoring these major environmental issues, and this proposal addresses emissions reductions in an economically responsible way.

The revenue generated from the carbon tax would be put into a public trust fund with 25 percent of funds going to pay down the deficit and the rest to subsidize any rate increases consumers might face.

The MCP would specifically tax the producers of coal, natural gas, oil and gas refineries, and cover other industrial emitters of greenhouse gases.

As for the price of carbon, McDermott has been citing a recent Brookings Institution report that analyzed the starting price set at $15 per ton. If carbon was priced at that amount, Brookings estimates that $80 billion would be raised in the first years of implementation, rising to $170 billion in 2030 and $310 billion by 2050.

McDermott is hoping that this bill will also be supported by Republicans in Congress. He added:

Mitt Romney’s Economic Advisor Greg Mankiw, Exxon-Mobil, the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives have backed this concept because they know we have to wean ourselves off of carbon emitting energy sources, and do it in a way that doesn’t hurt our economy and makes sense for businesses.

McDermott is a senior member on the House Ways and Means Committee, the body responsible for writing tax law.

Matt Kasper is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

Related Post:

• Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Support Regulating CO2 As A Pollutant, 60 Percent Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

Thousands of fish are dying in the Midwest as the hot, arid summer dries up rivers and causes water temperatures to climb in some spots to nearly 100 degrees. [Wall Street Journal]

About 40,000 shovelnose sturgeon were killed in Iowa last week as water temperatures reached 97 degrees. Nebraska fishery officials said they have seen thousands of dead sturgeon, catfish, carp and other species in the Lower Platte River, including the endangered pallid sturgeon.

Biologists in Illinois said the hot weather has killed tens of thousands of large- and smallmouth bass and channel catfish and is threatening the population of the greater redhorse fish, a state endangered species.

GOP lawmakers say this year’s harsh weather that has produced devastating wildfires and the most widespread drought in 50 years has not changed their minds on climate change. [The Hill]

At least 18 wildfires raged in Oklahoma on Sunday as  firefighters battled the consequences of a severe drought that shows no signs of letting up. [Los Angeles Times]

More quickly than any other place in the United States, the Alaskan Arctic is being transformed by global warming. The impacts of climate change are threatening a way of life. [Washington Post]

Ocean acidification caused by climate change is making it harder for creatures from clams to sea urchins to grow their shells, and the trend is likely to be felt most in polar regions, scientists said today. [Sydney Morning Herald]

Several biological challenges threaten to shrink the world’s coffee supply. [News Observer]

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will pledge 100 million pounds ($156 million) for two investment funds that seek to back renewable and energy efficient projects. [Bloomberg Businessweek]