By Cara Pike via Climate Access

“Climate resiliency” is a new buzzword in environmental communications. Buzzwords are exciting because when successful, they convey important concepts in a compact and compelling way. At the same time, it is easy to assume audience understanding and for terms to be co-opted over time.

Back in March, I had the pleasure of co-facilitating the Climate, Cities and Behavior Symposium (CCB) at the Garrison Institute, a gathering of municipal and community leaders involved in climate and sustainability planning. The focus was on understanding the intersections between resiliency, sustainability and climate issues. It quickly became clear that while use of the term resiliency is rising, there are still a lot of issues to consider about what resiliency actually means and the pros and cons of using it to advance public understanding and engagement.

At CCB, Missy Stults from the University of Michigan proposed (“Fostering Resilience: From Theory to Operation”) that resiliency is a subset of the larger umbrella of sustainability – the foundation (or handle) that keeps the umbrella strong. There are different types of resiliency to consider such as economic, ecological, community, climate, and social so being clear on what you are building resiliency for is key.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, resiliency is defined as “the ability to recover quickly from illness, change, or misfortune; buoyancy,” This is appealing because “climate resiliency” conveys both an inherent recognition of a threat that needs to be responded to, as well as a sense of efficacy – that it is possible to respond to that threat.

On the other hand, the other meaning of “resiliency” is “the property of a material that enables it to resume its original shape or position after being bent, stretched, or compressed; elasticity.” This is problematic because when used in the climate context, it can feed into the desire to return to the status quo as quickly as possible.

Mindy Fullilove, professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences and director of the Cities Research Group at Columbia University provided an example at CCB of how climate resiliency can mean very different things to different audiences. For those who have the resources to protect themselves from extreme weather events and other challenges, resiliency conveys a sense of strength. On the other hand, for communities already struggling due to economic and social injustice, resiliency can imply an expectation that people within those communities continue to withstand challenges, largely without the resources or support to adequately do so.

At the crux of this conflict is the idea that resiliency is about resuming an original form, a bouncing back to what was. This fails to recognize that the status quo wasn’t working in the first place as we were already on an unsustainable and inequitable path. The desire to return to normal in the wake of a disturbance is understandable,; however, what is needed is a “bouncing forward” to new approaches that tackle both the reality of a two-degree Celsius temperature increase as well as the systemic injustices that threaten the well-being of citizens who often also face some of the worst climate impacts.

My sense is just like with sustainability, using resiliency, as the new buzzword will not solve challenges engaging the public in these issues. Perhaps more important is to focus on conveying the characteristics that resilient systems and communities should reflect such as flexibility, diversity, and transparency; and to highlight strategies that enhance resilience in a range of areas, such as disaster risk-reduction and improving the quality of daily life.

A good example of an organization focusing on community-level solutions that illustrate both climate as well as social resiliency is IOBY – or “In Our Backyards.” Founded by Cassie Flynn (see her Garrison presentation), Erin Barnes and Brandon Whitney, IOBY emphasizes  what people want to see in their neighborhoods versus the typical “not in my backyard” environmental approach. By helping citizens organize and fund local projects, IOBY is fostering community buy-in for solutions, a network of long-term stewards, and visible benefits of taking action such as having access to green spaces and organic food.

What is perhaps most interesting about IOBY, however, is how it has become a network for organizing citizens around other local challenges. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, IOBY participants helped organize neighborhood response efforts by using the lists of project volunteers in their area as well the  IOBY neighborhood gardens to gather and coordinate.

Social resiliency and connectivity are among the most important capacities to develop as we learn to prepare for local climate impacts. Amplifying local climate solutions that benefit and bring people together is critically needed so we can begin to close the climate efficacy gap and build hope for the future.

– Cara Pike is the director of Climate Access

John Farrell via Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Going solar keeps getting cheaper, but most of the cost savings have come from less expensive solar panels. “Soft costs,” like permitting and inspections, are a rising share of the cost of a solar installation. Several years ago, these permits could increase the cost of a residential solar project (then around $8.00 per Watt) by 5-10% , highlighted in a 2010 study by Sunrun. But as solar gets cheaper, permitting is going to be a much bigger problem.

A recent analysis by Lawrence Berkeley Labs [pdf] illustrates the benefits of streamlining solar permitting rules: it can cut the cost of a 2011 residential solar project (at $6.00 per Watt) by 5-13%, today’s (at $4.00 per Watt) by 8-19%, and tomorrow’s by as much as 40%!

The report confirms the earlier Sunrun study with a statistical analysis of actual solar permitting rules and the impact on final installation costs. It also lends credence to streamlined permitting schemes (like Vermont‘s) and to the broader efforts to improve solar permitting, like Vote Solar’s Project Permit.

“Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it’s a wonder that humanitarians aren’t clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

No, it’s not The Onion. It’s The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which nowadays is much the same thing.

Once again, the country’s leading financial newspaper is recycling long-debunked myths from disinformers with PhDs posing as climate scientists — in this case, Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer, “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide: The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.”

But what nefarious forces have been demonizing CO2? Let’s see:

• IMF Chief (2/13): ”Unless We Take Action On Climate Change, Future Generations Will Be Roasted, Toasted, Fried And Grilled”
• World Bank Report (11/12): “A 4°C [7°F] World Can, And Must, Be Avoided” To Avert “Devastating” Impacts
• Wall Street Journal (1/13): “More Droughts, Floods, Extreme Weather Expected With Warming Climate”

Darn you, major international financial institutions and the paper’s own reporters!

Sure the Journal‘s editorial page has long been part of the effort to advance the pollutocrat do-nothing agenda (see Scientist: “The Murdoch Media Empire Has Cost Humanity Perhaps One or Two Decades in Battle Against Climate Change”).

But this piece is a new low. “It’s shameful even by the dismal standards of that page,” as Columbia Journalism Review puts its in their piece, “The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom.”

The entire piece is devoted to one of the most risible logical fallacies pushed by the deniers — that because CO2 stimulates plant growth, lots more CO2 must be great for plants. It’s like arguing that because humans need water to live, floods must be a great thing.

This myth has been widely debunked by Skeptical Science and a Climate Denial Crock of the Week video. In their extended debunking of the piece, Media Matters compares the argument to Idiocracy‘s fictional Brawndo.

You may remember Schmitt and Happer as 2 of the 16 authors of a 2012 WSJ op-ed who were labeled “dentists practicing cardiology” by 3 dozen top climate scientists. As Media Matters explains:

• Neither Have Written Peer-Reviewed Climate Research.
• Journal Does Not Disclose Happer Is Chairman Of Industry-Funded Institute
• Happer Compared Mainstream Climate Science To Holocaust “Propaganda.”
• Schmitt Was A Director At The Industry-Funded Heartland Institute.
• Schmitt: The “Obvious Path Of The United States” Under “Current Congress And President” Is “National Socialism.”

Only the WSJ could hold these two up as climate experts.

The notion that CO2 has little correlation with temperature is pure anti-science (see “How carbon dioxide controls earth’s temperature and In must-see AGU video, Richard Alley explains “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”)

Schmitt and Happer say our current CO2 levels are “low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history,” they pine for the days when “Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more,” and note that commercial greenhouse operators boost CO2 levels to ”1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.”

The recent scientific literature is beyond crystal clear that 1000 ppm — which is where we will end up this century if we listen to disinformers like these two — would result in multiple, simultaneous catastrophes for humanity, including widespread Dust-Bowlification.

Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, explained that we’re headed for 11°F warming, and “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.”

Yes, even school children know more than Schmitt, Happer and the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

Related Posts:

• Error-Riddled Matt Ridley Piece Lowballs Climate Change, Discredits Wall Street Journal. World Faces 10°F Warming.
• Bjorn Legacy: Lomborg Urges Climate Inaction With Misleading Stats In Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal
• The Wall Street Journal Does It Again: Another Whopper Of A Lie On Climate Science

Credit: AutomobileMag.com

Tesla Motors Company is coming off a very good week. On Wednesday, the company reported that it had sold more electric vehicles than any other automaker during the first quarter of the year, and turned a profit for the first time in its 10 year history.

On Thursday, Consumer Reports — the famously austere purveyors of customer satisfaction surveys and product testing for all manner of consumer goods — announced that Tesla’s Model S roadster outperformed every other commercially-available vehicle in their annual battery of stress tests, scoring a 99 out of a possible 100:

The Tesla Model S outscores every other car in our test Ratings. It does so even though it’s an electric car. In fact, it does so because it is electric.

Built from the ground up as an EV, this car’s overall balance benefits from mounting the battery under the floor and in the lowest part of the body. That gives the car a rock-bottom center of gravity that enables excellent handling, a comfortable ride, and lots of room inside.

The reviewers didn’t stop there. So thorough was the performance of Tesla’s flagship car, the magazine went on to describe the Model S as one of the best cars they’ve ever tested in its nearly 80 year history: “So is the Tesla Model S the best car ever? We wrestled with that question long and hard. It comes close.”

Tesla’s score of 99 is the highest for any hybrid or electric vehicle, and tied for the highest rating awarded to any car in the history of the magazine. The market for 100 percent electric cars has lagged behind the rest of the industry, hindered in part from the perception that the cars weren’t reliable or practical for everyday use. But coupled with the quickening expansion of high-speed charging stations in the most highly trafficked parts of the country, the endorsement from Consumer Reports could further expedite Tesla’s growth.

Lest critics think that fancy sports cars always sell well, it turns out that Tesla outsold the similarly-priced cars that drink gasoline created by Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi.

Sales of the company’s luxury sedans have steadily grown in recent months and the company is now on track to sell an estimated 21,000 cars by year’s end. Tesla believes that one way the company will sell more cars is to be able to sell them directly — not through a dealership. It is asking states that currently bar manufacturers from doing this to change their laws so that Tesla could sell cars to, say, Texans in Texas. A recent bill passed by a North Carolina Senate committee would ban the direct sale of automobiles, which would be a huge step backward for the company, which has sold 80 cars in the state.

Tesla’s recent growth and profit are nice, but the company needs to grow a lot more if it plans to displace more of the gas-guzzling vehicles currently on the road. Two things will help:

Read more

Senate nominee Gabriel Gomez (R-MA) (Credit: The Republican)

Gabriel Gomez acknowledges that ”science says climate change is real.” But the Republican nominee to fill John Kerry’s open Senate seat in Massachusetts says he is unwilling to take serious steps to combat it, lest it hurt the economy in the short term.

His support for a “serious energy agenda,” including the risky Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, coincides with his own significant investments in dirty energy companies.

On his campaign website, Gomez writes:

Climate change is real. However, while science says climate change is real, addressing the problem must be done rationally. Unfortunately, many solutions offered by politicians in Washington are not rational, and would put America at a competitive disadvantage. We need a serious energy agenda that promotes private sector innovation in both the United States and in other countries around the world.

He also attacks the Obama administration as “wrong in stopping the Keystone pipeline, a project that will create jobs, drive down our energy costs, and help us to become energy independent.” Beyond serious environmental risks, the Keystone XL project would create just 35 permanent jobs, would do little for American energy security, would actually raise energy costs for many Americans.

While his opponent, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), has made clean energy and defending the environment a top priority throughout his tenure in Congress, Gomez repeatedly bashes the Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member for being “focused on everything but the economy.” A 2009 study by the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute found that Markey’s proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), combined with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, would have created a net 1.7 million more American jobs.

A ThinkProgress review of Gomez’s personal financial disclosure filings reveals that a significant amount of his own money is invested, directly or indirectly, in Dirty Energy stocks and bonds. These include investments of between $1,000 and $15,000 each in: Read more

(Credit: www.jxnews.com.cn)

A new report out today shows that over 30 million people were displaced by climate-related extreme weather events … [Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre Publications]

The Global Estimates report reveals that 32.4 million people were forced to flee their homes in 2012 by disasters such as floods, storms and earthquakes. While Asia and west and central Africa bore the brunt, 1.3 million were displaced in rich countries, with the USA particularly affected.

98% of all displacement in 2012 was related to climate- and weather-related events, with flood disasters in India and Nigeria accounting for 41% of global displacement in 2012. In India, monsoon floods displaced 6.9 million, and in Nigeria 6.1 million people were newly displaced. While over the past five years 81% of global displacement has occurred in Asia, in 2012 Africa had a record high for the region of 8.2 million people newly displaced, over four times more than in any of the previous four years.

… Just as climate expert Lord Stern predicts that hundreds of millions will be displaced this century. [Guardian]

It is increasingly likely that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced from their homelands in the near future as a result of global warming. That is the stark warning of economist and climate change expert Lord Stern following the news last week that concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere had reached a level of 400 parts per million (ppm).

Massive movements of people are likely to occur over the rest of the century because global temperatures are likely to rise to by up to 5C because carbon dioxide levels have risen unabated for 50 years, said Stern, who is head of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.

“When temperatures rise to that level, we will have disrupted weather patterns and spreading deserts,” he said. “Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and animals will have died. The trouble will come when they try to migrate into new lands, however. That will bring them into armed conflict with people already living there. Nor will it be an occasional occurrence. It could become a permanent feature of life on Earth.”

New research suggests that half of the world’s plants and a third of its animals will lose more than half of their habitats due to climate change this century. [BBC, LA Times, USA Today]

Read more

We have pushed atmospheric CO2 levels to 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in human existence.

At the same time, a truly remarkably set of paleoclimate data shows the climate is much more sensitive to CO2 than we thought. And that means returning as quickly as possible back to 350 ppm is a vastly more rational course of action for a non-suicidal civilization, than, say continuing our unrestrained march toward 600 ppm, then 800, and then 1000.

NOAA reported Friday that the daily mean concentration of CO2 in the air around Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million this week:

At the same time, a major new Science study of paleoclimate temperatures — based on ”the longest sediment core ever collected on land in the Arctic” – revealed what happened the last time we had similar CO2 levels:

“One of our major findings is that the Arctic was very warm in the Pliocene [~ 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago] when others have suggested atmospheric CO2 was very much like levels we see today. This could tell us where we are going in the near future. In other words, the Earth system response to small changes in carbon dioxide is bigger than suggested by earlier models,” the authors state.

Yes, contrary to one or two (misreported) models suggesting a climate sensitivity on the low side, this study joins the myriad analyses of data that find it is likely to prove on the high side. For instance, recent observations of relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics found that “Future warming likely to be on high side of climate projections,” according to a November paper in Science.

How sensitive is the climate to increases in CO2, according to this “absolutely new knowledge” of paleoclimate temperatures?

Another significant finding to emerge from this first continuous, high-resolution record of the Middle Pliocene is documentation of sustained warmth with summer temperatures of about 59 to 61 degrees F [15 to 16 degrees C], about 8 degrees C [14 F] warmer than today.

This period of Arctic warmth “coincides, in part with a long interval of 1.2 million years when the West Antarctic Ice sheet did not exist.” Indeed, sea levels during the mid-Pliocine were about 25 m [82 feet] higher than today!

It is worth noting that a 2009 analysis in Science found that when CO2 levels were this high 15 to 20 million years ago, it was 5° to 10°F warmer globally and seas were also 75 to 120 feet higher.

The risks of failing to sharply curtail carbon pollution are enormous if the climate sensitivity is on the low side (see “Memo To Media: ‘Climate Sensitivity’ Is NOT The Same As Projected Future Warming, World Faces 10°F Rise“). But the risks of inaction are beyond incalculable if climate sensitivity is in the middle end of the range, let alone the high end suggested by the paleoclimate data:

Science (1/11) study — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter: Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”

As I explained in Nature online back in 2008 (here), once you factor in carbon-cycle feedbacks, even the uber-cautious Fourth Assessment report (AR4) of the IPCC makes clear we are headed toward 1000 ppm (the A1FI scenario). That conclusion has been supported by just about every major independent analysis, including a recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (see Study: We’re Headed To 11°F Warming And Even 7°F Requires “Nearly Quadrupling The Current Rate Of Decarbonisation“).

This new paper is just the latest to suggest the Arctic will warm much faster than the models have suggested. For instance, back in 2006, scientists analyzed deep marine sediments to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” That Nature study (subs. req’d) found Arctic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.

Clearly our climate models don’t do a good job of explaining what’s happening in the Arctic right now:

Arctic sea ice is melting much, much faster than even the best climate models had projected (actual observations in red). The reason is most likely unmodeled amplifying feedbacks. The image (from Climate Crocks via Arctic Sea Ice Blog) comes from a 2007 GRL research paper by Stroeve et al.

And this underestimation of polar amplification in turn leads the authors of the new study — and many other scientists — to conclude that the climate’s overall sensitivity is on the high side. As the UK Guardian reports:

Read more

GE's new Brilliant 2.5 megawatt turbine. (Credit: GE)

According to Bloomberg, Warren Buffet’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. is gearing up to drop $1.9 billion on new wind farms in Iowa. The investment might build as many as 656 new turbines by 2015, which would add as much as 1,050 megawatts of wind power capacity to the 2,285 megawatts the company already operates in the state.

The project could also herald a revival in American wind power in general. The anticipated expiration of the production tax credit for wind energy drove a spike in installations in 2012, then a lull into 2013, and finally an anticipated ramp up now that the credit was extended for another year by the fiscal cliff deal.

And because the new extension merely requires projects to start construction by the end of the year to qualify — projects previously had to actually come online by the end of the year to benefit from the credit — GE now expects the full force of the revival to hit in 2014:

Wind-farm developers including NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE) and Invenergy LLC may install 3,000 megawatts to 4,000 megawatts of turbines in the U.S. this year and as much as 7,000 megawatts next year, Anne McEntee, GE’s vice president of renewable energy, said today in an interview.

The U.S. added a record 13,124 megawatts of turbines last year, outpacing natural gas installations for the first time, as wind developers raced to complete projects ahead of the Dec. 31 expiration of the production tax credit. Denmark’s Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS) andSpain’s Gamesa Corp Tecnologica SA (GAM) also expect new orders to pick up by the third quarter.…

GE has received orders this year for more than 1,000 megawatts of wind turbines, including one from NextEra for 100.3 megawatts announced today for a Michigan wind farm and Invenergy’s 215-megawatt deal announced last week for a project in Texas.

Also coming down the pike for wind power is the new version of GE’s Brilliant — a 2.5 megawatt wind turbine, featuring new smart systems and accompanying storage capacity. With both its own sensors and access to the internet, the Brilliant can take in weather forecast data, grid system information, and supply and demand patterns, and use all that top adjust everything from electronics operations to its blade positions. Combined with a new height and an increase of rotor length to 120 meters, these changes boost the new Brilliant’s efficiency by 25 percent over the last model.

The batteries will boast 50 kilowatt-hours of storage a pop, and be hooked up to the turbines from a nearby ground pad. The batteries will store up excess power generated when the wind is blowing the strongest and the turbines are operating at peak capacity, then distribute the power during off hours. This smooths out the power supply from the wind farms, thus avoiding a lot of the disruptions and reliability issues that came along with the fact that the wind does not always cooperate with the needs of us humans.

All told, this would continue the roll wind power has already been on in the United States: 2012 saw the installation of wind capacity outpace all other forms of energy production, and the U.S. and China led the boom in global installations that same year.

In the new report Rate Design Matters: The Impact of Tariff Structure on Solar Project Economics in the U.S., GTM Research uncovers the often-not-discussed effect of utility rate structures on distributed solar generation.

In the report, GTM analyzes the electricity rates charged by Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and calculates the avoided cost (i.e. rate savings) for a 500-kilowatt commercial photovoltaics (PV) system within each utility. This is where the importance of rate design comes in.

Generally, there are three types of utility rates for commercial electricity customers: fixed charges, which are set fees; demand charges, which are calculated based on the customer’s maximum kilowatt usage (usually measured in 15-minute intervals); and consumption charges, which are based on total kilowatt-hours of energy used. Consumption charges offer customers with installed solar the highest potential for avoided cost, especially when time-of-use pricing (rates increase when electric demand is higher) is in effect since solar can help to avoid the higher costs during peak hours.

The bottom line is that when fixed and demand charges are a large share of the commercial utility rates, distributed solar does not make as much economic sense for the commercial customer. Alternatively, when demand charges are reduced and time-of-use rates apply (what GTM calls a “solar-friendly tariff structure”), distributed solar becomes an attractive investment that can provide electricity at lower-than-retail rates.

GTM came to this conclusion by analyzing the effect of two rate scenarios at SCE and SDG&E: a default (incentive-free) rate structure and a solar-friendly rate structure. The results from their analysis are included in the figure below (Figure 2.8 on page 13 of the report).

Commercial Solar Discount to Retail Rates, 2013 & 2017

Source: GTM Research

The figure above demonstrates the role that utility rate structures can play when it comes to determining the cost effectiveness of installing a commercial PV system. Note that the dotted line at 10 percent represents GTM’s assumption that solar would become competitive with traditional generation at that point and the solar discount in 2017 takes into account the decline in investment tax credit (ITC) from 30 percent to 10 percent.

Even though “rate design” doesn’t sound quite as exciting as net metering, the GTM report points out that it is just as important in “determining the long-term viability of distributed generation, particularly as the U.S. transitions to a post-subsidy reality.”

As we consider the policies that are needed to incentivize distributed generation, it’s clear that we should also consider how utility rates are designed and how they affect the economics of distributed solar.

Mari Hernandez is a Research Associate in Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

On Friday, the City of New York allocated $294 million of Superstorm Sandy recovery funds for resiliency projects to respond to the threat of fossil-fueled climate change.

The announcement was part of the unveiling of NYC’s plan for $1.77 billion in Sandy recovery initiatives by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) at New York City Hall:

The City has set aside $294 million for resiliency investments to be detailed in a report issued by the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency later this month.

“HUD’s approval of our comprehensive Action Plan enables us to take the next critical step toward recovery – launching the programs for home rebuilding and business assistance that will rejuvenate the neighborhoods Sandy hit hardest,” said Deputy Mayor for Operations Cas Holloway. “We’ll also take the first steps toward making the City more resilient to the impacts that we know climate change will bring.”

The sequester cuts reduced the planned budget for resilience from an original $327 million.

The New York City Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) was established by Bloomberg in November, 2012, with an explicit mission to address global warming:

When it comes to climate change, New York City has long been considered a leader in long-term sustainable planning, but Hurricane Sandy was a wake-up call to all New Yorkers.

Read more

Opine away!

by Dominique Browning

It is time to fight with your mom—about something important. That’s my Mother’s Day message to daughters—and sons, moms and dads, aunts and uncles.

Running Moms Clean Air Force has been eye-opening in many ways, not the least of which is combatting the sadness, if not paralysis, that afflicts us, from time to time, in the face of a planet-altering problem: climate change. We don’t believe there’s anything we can do until we actually begin to feel the power of our voices.

How does that happen? It happens when we start to talk to each other, and realize we’re all staying awake at night worrying about the same thing: our children’s futures. It happens when we talk to our elected representatives, who only care about issues we care about. It happens when we drive out of office politicians who don’t listen. It happens when grandmothers go to jail to protect our sacred right to clean air. It happens when Senators tell us to “Call off your moms” or when a President challenges us to “Show me a movement!” –and we do.

My friends and I have been talking recently about…prison. Do we have to go to jail to prove our commitment to fighting climate change? Is a hunger strike a measure of how much you care? Many of us can’t leave work, leave children, leave home—that doesn’t mean we aren’t serious.

Now is not the time to be judgmental or smug about the paths we are choosing—except for one: doing nothing. Unacceptable. Now is not the time for any activist to claim the moral high ground. After all, many dedicated people have been working very hard to fight climate change for decades now. We lost cap and trade. But we won something huge: a national conversation. For the first time.

Now is not the time to decide that Washington DC battles over legislation and regulation are hopeless and ineffectual. They are not. If, for just one small example, we can protect the mercury regulations (MATS) that were passed last year—now crippled by legal assaults—we will do more to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants than stopping the Keystone pipeline.

Now is not the time for the environmental movement to take accusatory aim at each other. The problem is too big, too entrenched, and too complicated to say that there is only one simple solution. After all, everyone fighting the fossil fuel enemy is still … burning fossil fuels.

Instead, I propose that we fight with our mothers.

Moms Clean Air Force is just at the beginning of what we know is going to be a long journey. But already it reminds me of being a feminist in the sixties and seventies. It meant a lot, when I was fifteen, attending consciousness-raising sessions, that Grown Up Women—my own mother’s age!—were leading the way, demanding parity and equality, exposing injustice. They were unafraid, outspoken, and passionate. They believed in a different future.

We believe in that too. Mothers matter. The best solution to feeling depressed about the future is to unite—and take action. Give until it feels good. In honor of Mother’s Day, remember how important it is for mothers to be fighting with their daughters—and vice versa. There’s more power in sharing power. Our daughters and sons will soon be running this country; we can show them, by working right alongside them, that being a responsible parent means being an engaged citizen. So roll up your sleeves, and get into a good fight with your mother.

After you’ve given her those flowers, of course.

Dominique Browning is the Senior Director of Moms Clean Air Force.

During the last four years, Congressional action on climate change has been minimal, at best. After the Senate thwarted the cornerstone of the climate change plan, a cap-and-trade bill, a horde of climate-deniers won seats in the 2010 Congressional elections. The government continues to subsidize fossil fuels for an amount larger than the GDP of one-fifth of the world’s countries.

Despite the disappointments of the last term, there are congressional members still willing to fight climate change. One of these members, Rep. Scott Peters (CA-52) is continuing this battle by introducing the Super Pollutant Emissions Reduction (SUPER) Act of 2013.

The SUPER Act reinvigorates the conversation about climate change by addressing “short-lived climate pollutants,” a potent group of gases referred to as SLCPs or “super pollutants.” While carbon dioxide (CO2) is the best-known greenhouse gas, it is certainly not the only one. On the contrary, nearly half of global warming is caused by super pollutants such as methane, tropospheric ozone, hydrofluorocarbons and black carbon.

Super pollutants are far more potent than CO2, with between 25 and 4000 times more global warming potential over a 100-year period. Furthermore, these pollutants remain in the atmosphere for no more than 15 years. Some gases such as black carbon and tropospheric ozone last less than two weeks. CO2 has a much longer atmospheric lifetime. Quick action to reduce super pollutant emissions can have major short-term benefits, slowing down warming by as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050.

The SUPER Act would take immediate action by streamlining the enforcement of existing federal policies for reducing super pollutants and supporting similar policies, such as California’s extremely successful diesel truck regulations and recent attack on hydrofluorocarbons, at the state and local level.

While the scientific imperative to reduce super pollutant emissions is clear, the optimal policy for doing so is not. That’s why the SUPER Act would also create a task force to drive the policy discussion behind the SUPER Act. The task force, composed of representatives from academia, involved industries and all levels of government, would review existing policies and report a list of best practices for mitigating super pollutant emissions. Such a discussion will be crucial to informing future actions towards developing super pollutant legislation.

Why the SUPER Act is important

Read more

The National Journal has a long piece out, “The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change: Science, storms, and demographics are starting to change minds among the rank and file.”

Back in October 2010, NJ ran an article explaining, “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.”

Now reality is biting back, or, perhaps more accurately, nibbling back. The new piece begins with MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel, a registered Republican since 1973. He switched his registration to “independent” shortly after a not-so-successful meeting with Republican presidential candidates in the run up to South Carolina’s GOP presidential primary, a meeting arranged by the influential Charleston-based Christian Coalition of America:

“The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” [Emanuel] says.

Emanuel predicts that many more voters like him, people who think of themselves as conservative or independent but are turned off by what they see as a willful denial of science and facts, will also abandon the GOP, unless the party comes to an honest reckoning about global warming.

Certainly recent polls (see here) make clear climate change is a political winner. It is a classic wedge issue that divides Tea Party extremists from independents and moderate/liberal Rebuplicans. NJ explains:

The problem is, as polling data and the changing demographics of the American electorate show, it’s likely that the position that can win voters in a primary will lose voters in a general election. Some day, though, the facts—both scientific and demographic—will force GOP candidates to confront climate change whether they want to or not. And that day will come sooner than they think….

“These polls show that there are a lot of people who are inclined to vote Republican—and believe America should respond to climate change,” says Edward Maibach, director of the George Mason program. “Republicans aren’t inclined to respond to it right now, but in the future, if they don’t take these issues seriously, they’re inclined to alienate a lot of Republican voters.”

As one of the leading experts on public opinion analysis in this area, Stanford’s Jon Krosnick, explained back in October, candidates “may actually enhance turnout as well as attract voters over to their side by discussing climate change.”

Some Republicans have started to figure this out, but that means taking on the Tea Party extremists and their well-funded pollutocrat backers like the Kochs:

Read more

In our book Clean Tech Nation, which came out late last year, Clint Wilder and I offered up a Seven-Point Action Plan for Repowering America. One of our main action items was “Leverage Proven Investment Tools from the Oil, Gas, & Real Estate Sectors.” Namely, level the investment playing field by opening up master limited partnerships (MLPs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs) to clean-energy projects.

Fast-forward eight months since the release of the book, and this action item is starting to gain some bipartisan support and traction inside the Beltway. Late last month, a group of lawmakers reintroduced the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, spearheaded by Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and House Representatives Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.).

The bill would extend MLPs to clean energy, instead of limiting them arbitrarily to oil and gas projects. “This market-driven solution supports the all-of-the-above energy strategy we need to power our country for generations to come,” Coons said in a statement. “Our legislation will unleash private capital, create jobs, and modernize our tax code.”

The bill’s language has changed from earlier versions and now includes specific provisions for clean-energy technologies ranging from electricity storage and renewables generation to combined heat and power and energy-efficient buildings. “In the ether of policy, some fossil fuel interests seem ready to accept an MLP structure that secures the mechanism for their own interests while opening it up to clean energy,” explains Patrick Von Bargen, partner at clean-tech government relations firm 38 North Solutions.

Does it have a chance of passage? Well, the bill has not been scored yet by the Joint Tax Committee of the House and Senate. In other words, there’s no clarity yet on the impact such changes to the MLP structure would have on federal revenues. Depending on the impact’s size, how would it be paid for? And finally — and perhaps most importantly — what legislative package would this all be attached to? With comprehensive tax reform unlikely in the near future, it’s more likely it would be part of a bargain on the sequester, debt limit, and fiscal 2014 funding, according to Von Bargen.

In addition to MLPs, the opening of REITs to clean-energy investments is also gaining traction.

Read more

Ron Pernick is founder and managing director of research and advisory firm Clean Edge and the coauthor of two books on clean-tech business trends and innovation, Clean Tech Nation (HarperCollins, 2012) and The Clean Tech Revolution (HarperCollins, 2007).

Joe Biden waxes prosaic about the impediments to action on climate change and what accomplishment he is proudest of: the clean energy investments in the Recovery Act. [Rolling Stone]

In the very beginning, we decided that we had to move on this. And we thought, cap-and-trade. But it got shut down, even when we had a Democratic Congress. So from that point on, the president has been trying to figure out how he can use his executive authority to make some real changes. We’ve been dealing with a Congress where a significant portion of the other party thinks there’s no such thing as global warming. …

The thing I’m proudest of that we were able to get done in the first term was the Recovery Act. It had $90 billion in clean-energy programs. We had a lot of money going into research and development, and also tax credits for wind and solar energy. Republicans say to me, “That’s not government’s role,” and I say, “Why in the devil do you think we have the investment tax credit you guys get for drilling for oil? How did that start?” The reason it started was six, seven decades ago, we didn’t have the technology to know how many dry wells you had to dig before you hit a gusher, so we rewarded people for going out and exploring. We still spend $4 billion a year on that – and they don’t even need it anymore. And yet they fight us on renewable-energy tax credits. …

But it’s been hard to get our arms around, with this Congress, what you know you should be doing. You should be attacking the carbon emissions, period, and whether it’s cap-and-trade or carbon tax or whatever, that’s the realm in which we should be playing. In the meantime, the president is going to use his executive authority to, essentially, clean up the bad stuff, encourage the good stuff and promote private industry moving in that direction. If we had a different Congress, I think you’d see a more aggressive emissions legislation.

Senate Republicans continue to prevent a committee vote on Gina McCarthy’s nomination to head the EPA after boycotting the meeting yesterday morning. [New York Times]

Bob Semple on the GOP “temper tantrum” yesterday: “What’s truly dumb about this charade is that Ms. McCarthy is not an ideologue.” [New York Times]

Organizing for America continues to roll out its offensive on congressional climate deniers, recommending investment in tin foil hats. [The Hill]

The Economist on hitting 400ppm: “The last time such values prevailed on Earth was in the Pliocene epoch, 4m years ago, when jungles covered northern Canada.” [Economist]

Read more

It’s tempting to grade the President on a curve, but future generations won’t – if we destroy the livable climate they’ll need to feed 9 billion people.

“History does not forgive us our national mistakes because they are explicable in terms of our domestic politics….  A nation which excuses its own failures by the sacred untouchableness of its own habits can excuse itself into complete disaster.”  – George Kennan, 1951.

Readers have asked my opinion of Jonathan Chait’s New York magazine column: “Obama Might Actually Be the Environmental President.” His sub-hed tells the tale:

His climate-change policy has been an abject failure, says Al Gore and just about everyone else. They’re wrong. Here’s why.

No.

It’s quite safe to say that, at the very least, it is wildly premature to say Obama hasn’t been an abject failure and pretty safe to say that he is — at least from the perspective of future generations and history’s judgment. That was the point of my election night post, “Obama Wins Reelection, Now Must Become A Climate Hawk To Avoid Dust-Bin Of History, Dust Bowl For America.”

While I usually agree with Grist’s inimitable climate hawk, Dave Roberts, I’m not down with, “Seems to me Chait mostly gets it right.” Like Chait, Roberts wants to grade Obama on a curve, “The question for me is whether Obama has been a success compared to what was (and is) possible.”

As I’ll discuss below, I think Obama is a failure on those grounds, too. But it can’t be repeated too often that Obama’s legacy will be determined primarily by whether we avert catastrophic climate change.

If we don’t, then Obama — indeed, the entire political system, the media and the intelligentsia, heck, all of us — will be seen as failures, and rightfully so. As a 2012 PricewaterhouseCoopers report makes clear, anything other than aggressive efforts to slash carbon pollution starting ASAP likely means 7°F  to 11°F warming globally by 2100 (with more warming next century). That would cause substantially higher warming over most of the U.S. It would leave much of the “breakbasket of the world” (and indeed much of the world’s arable and habitable land) in Dust Bowl conditions much worse than this nation has ever known. By mid-century, the nation and the world will be engaged in a desperate multi-decade effort to figure out how to feed nine billion people on a planet whose carrying capacity has been gutted.

If we don’t stop climate catastrophe, then calling Obama the “environmental president” because of all his other, well-documented environmental accomplishments is like, well, the old line, “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

The point of Kennan’s quote above is that history doesn’t grade us on a curve. And in this case, we’d be graded for a millenium of multiple, simultaneous, ever-worsening, irreversible disasters foisted on future generations because we were too greedy and myopic to devote even a small fraction of our wealth to getting off of carbon a few decades sooner than we were forced to anyway! Not exactly “the greatest generation.”

Here is the only curve future generations will grade us on if we allow it to happen, if we destroy the stable climate of the past 11,000 years that enabled modern civilization:

Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming this century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature).

But even if we ignore Kennan and take the narrow, short-term perspective — which, it must be pointed out, is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess — and try to imagine what Obama could have done differently, he still can only get an incomplete (that could convert to a D at best, and an F- in most plausible scenarios).

The entire premise of Chait’s piece is that the failure to pass a climate bill isn’t fatal to Obama’s legacy because, near the end of his 8-year presidency, Obama is going to embrace tough carbon pollution standards for existing power plants along the lines of what the Natural Resources Defense Council has proposed (see here). Modified rapture!

Now I don’t think one can discount the fact that using the EPA to deal with carbon opens the door to significant delay through the courts. Worse, if the Republicans can ever figure out how to win the presidency again, they could slow, stop, or roll back the whole thing.

And why wouldn’t the GOP? Team Obama’s catastrophic climate silence — a silence his White House inanely imposed on much of the progressive and environmental establishment back in 2009 (see here) — coupled with his utter failure to push hard for a Senate vote, has turned a winning political “wedge” issue into something that is mistakenly perceived to be a political loser by much of the political establishment. His embrace of an “all of the above” energy strategy, which is to say no strategy at all, has legitimized a massive expansion of fossil fuel production — and export.

No, I’m not overselling what one man can achieve — I’m simply not ignoring the damage done by an entire administration grotesquely indifferent to — and incompetent at — climate messaging. As Prof. Robert Brulle, one of the country’s leading experts on the environmental movement, put it, “By failing to even rhetorically address climate change, Obama is mortgaging our future and further delaying the necessary work to build a political consensus for real action.”

We are on the brink of losing yet another full 8 years that could have been used to inform the American public about what’s happening now, the bad stuff coming that we can’t stop, and what needs to be done now to avoid the really catastrophic stuff we can.

Churchillian leadership on climate may not be a sufficient condition for avoiding the climate catastrophe, but it is almost certainly a necessary one.

Given that climate change is in fact an existential threat to the nation and modern civilization, I also don’t think that we can ignore the myriad other failures by Obama beyond his failure to use the bully pulpit. Here are four: 

Read more

Warming-charged Superstorm Sandy affected electric grid security throughout Tri-State area.

This morning, CAP Senior Fellow Daniel J. Weiss testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce about electric grid reliability. He made a strong case for confronting the elephant in the room –the impact climate change has on the reliability and security of the electric grid. The other elephant in the room is the effect that burning fossil fuels for electricity has on our climate.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on “American Energy Security and Innovation: Grid Reliability Challenges in a Shifting Energy-Resource Landscape.”

Discussing electricity security and innovation while ignoring climate change is like discussing personal health while ignoring cigarette smoking, diet, and exercise. Any examination of this shifting landscape must acknowledge that our electricity-generation systems produce much of the carbon pollution responsible for climate change and that the effects of climate change impair electricity reliability. Since coal-fired power plants emit one-third of the climate pollution in the United States, it is irresponsible to assess changes in our electricity system while ignoring climate pollution and its impacts.

Americans understand that extreme weather is related to man-made climate change that costs our economy billions of dollars annually. A recent poll from Yale University and George Mason University found that many Americans believe that global warming caused recent extreme weather and climatic events to be “more severe.”

Extreme weather events — including storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires — threaten electricity reliability. The Congressional Research Service concluded that, “[P]ower delivery systems are most vulnerable to storms and extreme weather events.”

These events also threaten American lives and the economy. The most severe and extreme weather events caused 1,107 deaths and $188 billion in damages in 2011 and 2012.

A Center for American Progress analysis found that federal natural disaster-relief and recovery spending cost taxpayers $136 billion in the fiscal years from 2011 to 2013, or $400 per household annually. And the National Climate Assessment draft warns us that we can expect more extreme and severe weather, including droughts and rainstorms. The severe 2012 drought, for example, interfered with electricity generation in California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York by shrinking the amount of cooling water available for power plants. It also disrupted oil and natural gas production.

Superstorm Sandy and other severe storms disrupted electricity transmission and distribution by downing power lines and damaging substations. The National Climate Assessment draft predicts that future climate-change-related events will interfere with electricity transmission.

We urge the subcommittee to support policies to achieve a more secure, reliable electricity system by accomplishing the following three goals:

1. The subcommittee should support policies that slow climate change by reducing carbon pollution from power plants, the largest uncontrolled source of emissions.

Failing that, EPA must at least comply with the Supreme Court by setting such standards under the Clean Air Act.

Read more

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Thanks to Mari Hernandez, Research Associate, and Jackie Weidman, Special Assistant, on the Energy Policy team of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The fight over American coal exports continues to be dramatic.  Yesterday, energy company Kinder Morgan announced that it is dropping plans to build its Port Westward Project near Port of St. Helens, Oregon. The export terminal would have transported 15-30 million tons of coal from Wyoming and Montana to Asian nations.

While the company attributed its decision to the logistics of the site rather than larger global energy dynamics or community opposition, environmental groups noted that residents of the region were stridently opposed to the terminal. “It’s clear that our citizens have no interest in seeing their region turned into a conduit for dirty coal,” as an advocate for Columbia Riverkeeper said.

Less than a year ago, six coal export terminals were under consideration in Oregon and Washington, but as of yesterday only three remain. These are: the Gateway Pacific Terminal near Bellingham, WA; the Millennium Bulk Terminals in Longview, WA; and the Morrow Pacific Project near Boardman, OR.

Coal exports from the United States to Asia are controversial for many reasons. One of these is that the coal that would be shipped abroad is primarily taxpayer-owned coal, from public lands in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. This region produces approximately 40 percent of our nation’s coal. Recently, concerns have been raised that coal companies may not be providing taxpayers with a fair return for the extraction of their minerals, and are “dodging” royalty payments. This allegation has prompted an internal investigation at the Department of the Interior, interest by the chairman and ranking member of a key Senate committee, and concern from the governors of Oregon and Washington.

Additionally, moving the coal from the Rockies to the west coast requires significant new infrastructure, including trains that can be up to a mile long. Communities along those routes have worried about the noise, air pollution, and water contamination that come with transporting vast amounts of coal by trains. As one rancher whose property would be crossed by a new rail line put it, “They call us radical environmentalists because we want the laws enforced.”

In 2012, U.S. coal exports were expected to reach their highest levels since 1981, and the potential for continued growth is high considering that the U.S. has more proven reserves that any other country. And, Wyoming recently mined its 10-billionth ton of coal, to which the Executive Director of the Wyoming Mining Association responded, “The industry looks forward to supplying power from Wyoming coal–affordably, reliably—for the next 100 years.”

But, WyoFile’s Dustin Bleffizer recently pointed out an important paradox regarding coal exports and climate change that will be important for policymakers to keep in mind:

Read more

Wind power had a banner year in 2012, accounting for more new generating capacity than any other resource. Despite the boom in cheap natural gas, 42 percent of all new capacity last year was actually from wind, which clocked in at 13,131 MW in new installations for the year.

The economics for wind power have only gotten more compelling, helped in no small part by the Production Tax Credit and the Investment Tax Credit creating strong investment incentives. This boom in wind power has begun to transform electricity markets across the country, creating significant net benefits for consumers and providing low carbon power to homes nationwide.

A new report from the consulting firm Synapse and Americans for a Clean Energy Grid found that increases in wind power in the PJM Interconnection could save consumers $6.9 billion per year out to 2026, along with 14 percent reductions in CO2.

The PJM Interconnection is the world’s largest competitive wholesale electricity market, serving 60 million customers across 13 states and the District of Columbia. Currently, wind provides about 1.5 percent of the electricity to PJM’s customers, and accounts for 3.4 percent of installed capacity. Based just on the Renewable Portfolio Standards in states within the PJM region, renewables must provide 14 percent of all electricity by 2026. It is likely that about 11 percent of this will come from new wind generation.

The report from Synapse uses the projections from meeting Renewable Portfolio Standards as a reference case, and then takes a look at the effects of doubling the amount of wind power required by statute in the PJM region out to 2026. By modeling the production costs and capital investments, the authors can ascertain what the difference is between these two cases for revenue requirements (and therefore, the impact on ratepayers). The big difference between these two cases is that in the reference scenario, natural gas composes the majority of new generation beyond what the state Renewable Portfolio Standard requires—and wind takes that market share in the other. This illustrates the shortsightedness of the “cheap natural gas” narrative that has become conventional wisdom in mainstream reporting. The cheaper bet, actually, is increasing deployment of wind.

The report finds that doubling capacity of installed wind, from 32.1 GW in the base case to 65.4 GW in the wind case, would create net savings of $6.9 billion per year. This is the result of savings from production costs amounting to $14.5 billion, and capital investment requirements of $7.6 billion. Remember that the capital investment numbers here represent the difference between what would be spent in the reference case ($17.4 billion) and what would be spent in the wind case ($25 billion).

The other benefit of more wind in PJM is lower wholesale prices. The report finds that the load-weighted average annual price for power drops from $80.27 per megawatt hour to $78.53 per megawatt hour.

Read more