Rhetorical adaptation, however, is a political winner. Too bad it means preventable suffering for billions.

We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.

That’s the pithiest expression I’ve seen on the subject of adaptation, via John Holdren, now science advisor.  Sometimes he uses “misery,” rather than “suffering.”

Frankenstorm Sandy, like Katrina, provides many lessons we continue to ignore, such as Global warming “adaptation” is a cruel euphemism — and prevention is far, far cheaper.

I draw a distinction between real adaptation, where one seriously proposes trying to prepare for what’s to come if we don’t do real mitigation (i.e. an 800 to 1000+ ppm world aka Hell and High Water) and rhetorical adaptation. The latter is a messaging strategy used by those who really don’t take global warming seriously — those who oppose serious mitigation and who don’t want to do bloody much of anything, but who don’t want to seem indifferent to the plight of humanity (aka poor people in other countries, who they think will be the only victims at some distant point in the future).

In practice, rhetorical adaptation really means “buck up, fend for yourself, walk it off.”  Let’s call the folks who push that “maladapters.”  Typically, people don’t spell out specifically where they stand on the scale from real to rhetorical.

I do understand that because mitigation is so politically difficult, people are naturally looking at other “strategies.”  But most of the discussion of adaptation in the media and blogosphere misses the key points:

1. Real adaptation is substantially more expensive than mitigation (see Scientists find “net present value of climate change impacts” of $1240 TRILLION on current emissions path, making mitigation to under 450 ppm a must, reprinted below).
2. Real adaptation without very substantial mitigation is just a cruel euphemism (see An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts).
3. Real adaptation requires much bigger and far more intrusive government than mitigation.  Indeed, if the anti-science ideologues get their way and stop serious mitigation, then the government will inevitably get into the business of telling people where they can and can’t live (can’t let people keep rebuilding in the ever-spreading flood plains or the ever-enlarging areas threatened by sea level rise and Dust-Bowlification) and how they can live (sharp water curtailment in the SW DustBowl, for instance) and possibly what they can eat.  Conservative action against climate action now will force big government in coming decades to triage our major coastal cities — Key West and Galveston and probably New Orleans would be unsavable, but what about Miami and Houston?  (See Don’t believe in global warming? That’s not very conservative.)
4. Real adaptation is so expensive (and endless) that it is essentially impossible to imagine how a real adaptation bill could pass Congress — unless of course you paid for it with a high and rising price for CO2.  Hmm.  Why didn’t somebody think of that?
5. The only people who will pursue real adaptation are those who understand the latest science and are prepared to take serious political action based on that understanding. Unfortunately, that doesn’t include any of the people people who helped kill the climate bill back in 2009 and 2010.  There isn’t really much point in spending tens of billions of dollars to plan for, say, a sea level rise of several feet if you don’t accept that is what’s coming. The point is, you can’t even imagine doing the planning and bill-writing and then actually investing in real adaptation — unless  you accept the science  and do serious worst-case planning.  But if  you accepted the science, you’d obviously pursue mitigation as your primary strategy, while using some of the proceeds from the climate bill to support adaptation.

So real adaptation is not more politically viable than real mitigation — and arguably it’s less viable since at real mitigation has multiple co-benefits, including less urban air pollution, improved health and productivity, sharp reductions in oil imports and so on.

What really is the point of pursuing something that is not more politically viable than mitigation when it won’t actually prevent misery and suffering for billions of people?  Sure, we must pursue adaptation for Americans — and we are ethically bound to help developing countries adapt to the climate change that we helped create — but real mitigation is the sine qua non.

Real mitigation is an effort to keep emissions as far below 450 ppm as is possible — and if we go above 450 ppm, to get back to 350 as fast as possible (see How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution).

Let me expand on #1 and #2 below.

What is the cost of “adaptation”?  It is almost incalculable.  The word is a virtually meaningless euphemism in the context of catastrophic global warming.  Here is what dozens of recent studies make clear we risk if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path:

Read more

by Adam James

There are no “easy fixes” to transforming our energy system. But the solutions that may work fastest are often the simplest and least exciting: rate structure changes, streamlined permitting, and good interconnection laws.

Below, I will outline four big ideas that can move us toward an electricity system with higher penetrations of clean, distributed energy. This is not a comprehensive list, but it encompasses the “must dos” for driving distributed generation.

1. Solar PV: Siting, Permitting, and Fees — Oh My!

The Problem: Cheaper solar equals more solar. So why is it that, despite paying record low prices for PV modules in recent years, America lags so far behind countries like Germany in total installed PV capacity?

The answer, as a Lawrence Berkeley National Lab study shows (and David Roberts at Grist explains well here), is that the “soft costs” in the U.S. are far higher than in places with high penetration like Germany. Soft costs include siting and permitting regulations, taxes, and fees on solar PV which make installation much more expensive.

The Fix: Streamline the siting and permitting process and do away with pesky fees. Solar Communities has done some great work here, and while I think their 12 point plan is dead on, I’ll narrow it down here to four simple steps.

First, scrap the permitting fee on PV installations. That’s an average of 44c/W leveled out right there. Second, use a standard permit (preferably electronic) and specify the timeframe for approval. Third, cap the total permitting costs (cutting sales tax will help much here). Fourth, streamline inspections by offering an inspection checklist and narrowing the timeframe for inspections.

The Fight: This is not a battle between fired-up solar installers and evil regulators determined to quash the rise of PV. The challenge is standardization of something new, and bringing cities and installers together to communicate on what is needed in different places. Sharing best practices and success stories will help much.

Who can make it happen? With the exception of sales tax, which is a state issue and requires the state legislature to approve any exemptions, the remainder of the changes can happen at the local and municipal level with City ordinances.

2. Making Connections: Interconnection Laws to Hook Up PV Systems

Read more

by Graham Readfearn, via DeSmogBlog

It’s difficult to really know where to start in describing Lord Christopher Monckton, one of the planet’s most outspoken deniers of the risks of human-caused climate change.

You could say he’s the leader of the Scotland branch of a fringe UK political party, for example.

Or describe him as the chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, a climate science-mangling organisation in the US which doesn’t disclose its funders.

But earlier this week, Lord Monckton gave himself another title.

In an opinion column about how climate change had nothing to do with the deadly superstorm Sandy, Lord Monckton wrote how he was “an appointed expert reviewer for the forthcoming “Fifth Assessment Report” to be published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Now that’s pretty impressive stuff. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gathers and summarises the world’s research on climate change.

I wondered how one might be “appointed” as an “expert reviewer,” so I asked the secretariat at the IPCC about the process.

Here’s what they told me (my bolding):

Anyone can register as an expert reviewer on the open online registration systems set up by the working groups. All registrants that provide the information requested and confirm their scientific expertise via a self-declaration of expertise are accepted for participation in the review. They are invited to list publications, but that is not a requirement and the section can be left blank when registering. There is no appointment.

Hang on. No appointment? But Lord Monckton just … but he says that he … right there, he just said he was appointed, all official like.

Now there are some appointed spots within the IPCC report-writing process. Lead Authors and Contributing Lead Authors are approved by the IPCC bureau, as are Review Editors. Contibuting Authors are generally invited by the Lead Authors.

But reading the response from the IPCC, it sounds as though even I could get a gig as an “expert reviewer.” It would make a cracking addition to most people’s CV.

Anyone out there who might be thinking about applying for a job that you just know in your heart of hearts you’re not qualified to do, might want to think about asking Lord Christopher Monckton for a bit of guidance.

Because when it comes to puffing out your CV, the non-Member of the House of Lords is highly skilled.

His modus operandi (aside from speaking Latin in interviews) appears to be that the more spectacular the claim, the less likely people are to disbelieve you. Like climate change science being a plot to “shut down the west,” for example.

So here, just a small handful of some of Monckton’s greatest hits:

Read more

“The greatest gifts are often seen, in the course of nature, rained by celestial influences on human creatures; and sometimes, in supernatural fashion, beauty, grace and talent are united beyond measure in one single person.” — Georgio Vasari on Leonardo da Vinci

by Clara Vondrich

With all eyes trained on two startling collisions of hot air and cold fronts – Hurricane Sandy and our Presidential election — the clean tech community has had little chance to honor the passing of one of our leading lights, boy wonder Corwin Hardham, who died two weeks ago at the age of 38.

Corwin was the co-founder and CEO of Makani Power, a renewable energy startup with an improbable but tantalizing vision: Harvest the wind at higher altitudes where it is stronger and more consistent, side-stepping the intermittency issues which plague traditional wind farms.  So what does this mean practically: Throw more steel at the problem by building regular turbines taller and higher?  No.

Corwin’s idea, like his personality, was much more refined, rooted in finesse and physics rather than brute strength.  How about a self-flying kite on a retractable tether which can position itself optimally to capture maximum wind energy using 90% less material than a conventional wind turbine?  OK.  Now we’re talking!

The Makani prototype is a carbon fiber airplane wing, gorgeous and featherlight – fitted with four propeller/generator pairs mounted perpendicular to the wing.  Air moving across the propeller blades forces them to rotate, driving the generator to produce electricity.  The wing flies in vertical circles and sends the generated power back down the tether to the ground.  The flight system is fully autonomous — no pilot required — controlled by sophisticated computer programming that is beyond my capacity to explain.

Wait, reality check: Brilliant idea cooked up by a mad scientist hell bent on, er, saving the world, I’ve read this before … in comic books.  Did it have a leg to stand on?  Top scientists at the US Department of Energy certainly thought so.  Makani was an early award-recipient of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).  The “energy gamechanger” agency was set up early in the Obama Administration exclusively to support high-risk, high-reward technologies with the potential to transform our energy system.  Only early-stage designs are funded, with the goal to help them bypass the valley of death between design and deployment. By definition, ARPA-E doesn’t help existing energy tools like solar panels or traditional wind turbines down their learning curves – it’s aim is to create new learning curves entirely, supporting only the boldest brightest visions with the potential to flip the current energy paradigm on its head. Makani Power quickly became an ARPA-E poster child, featured with pride and prominence at the third annual summit in DC earlier this year.

Though he’d insist it was a team effort, Corwin was principally responsible for the design and engineering of the Makani system.  The technology is in its seventh iteration, having been buoyed my multi-million dollar grants from Google and ARPA-E.  The latest version has a generating capacity of 600 kilowatts, but Corwin wasn’t content to stop there: Makani is now working on a five-megawatt system for offshore use. This beauty – roughly the wingspan of a Boeing 747 – is the key to achieving Makani’s vision of utility-scale deployment in offshore wind farms.

The Makani wing in flight showing the 4 generators/propellers (Photo: Makani Power)

Makani is working to demolish some of the last remaining roadblocks to traditional wind power. On-shore wind has seen stunning increases in installed capacity in recent years and it’s virtually cost-competitive with fossil energy in many places. But some sticky problems remain, not the least of which is the lack of grid-scale energy storage that means electrons stop flowing when the wind stops blowing, low capacity factors, significant up-front costs, bulky infrastructure and associated NIMBYism.  Further, in the U.S., the wind and solar sectors are being squeezed by the shale gas boom driving electricity prices to unprecedented lows.

Dr. Jonathan Koomey explained why Makani could have a leg-up on traditional wind in a post reprinted in Climate Progress earlier this year:

Read more