SOLAR TODAY Blog

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

Congress has dropped the ball for this year on climate legislation, but that doesn't mean the nation needs to drift deeper and deeper into fossil-fueled deficits. The Presidential Climate Action Project, a think tank chaired by former Sen. Gary Hart, regularly puts together a list of executive initiatives that can be undertaken without Congressional action. The 2010 program was posted this morning and it's a doozy. Here's the introduction:

The most important long-term challenge facing the United States today is its transition to a clean energy economy. It also is one of the nation's biggest challenges. Today, 84% of America's total energy use comes from fossil fuels. But it is a challenge filled with opportunity. Deliberate progress toward greater energy efficiencyand low-carbon renewable energy will make our industries more competitive, our economy more stable, our job creation more robust, and our nation more secure. If we expedite the transition, we will minimize our economy's impact on the environment and reduce the impacts of global climate change.

In 2009, the 111th Congress passed and President Obama signed the largest energy bill in American history, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It included more than $80 billion of federal investments in energyefficiency and renewable energy resources. It was an important first step.

Congress has failed, however, to take the essential next step: Implementing an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions and putting a price on carbon. While the most prominent climate and energy bills considered so far by the 111th Congress would be game-changers in our economy, they fall far short of reducing U.S. emissions to the levels recommended by leading climate scientists for industrial economies -- 25% to 40% below 1990 emissions by 2020.

As the international community attempts to deal with climate change and the other liabilities of fossil fuels, the global market for "green" technologies is becoming increasingly competitive. The New America Foundation estimates the United States ran an overall green trade deficit of nearly $9 billion in 2008 and a deficit of $6.4 billion in renewable energy technologies. The White House Council of Economic Advisors has calculated the number of jobs that might be created if the United States tries harder to win the race. It projects that U.S. jobs related to the environment could grow 52% from 2000 to 2016 compared to only 14% for other occupations.

In January 2007, the Wirth Chair at the University of Colorado Denver launched the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), a foundation-funded program to identify changes in federal policies and programs that would mitigate climate change and help facilitate the transition to clean energy.

In an effort to stimulate discussion about climate change and clean energy during the presidential campaign, PCAP provided suggestions to all of the candidates. In 2008, the project met with leaders of President-elect Obama's transition team and presented a report with nearly 200 proposals for presidential and congressional action. PCAP's emphasis, however, was on policies the new President could implement without further action by Congress. PCAP commissioned the Center for Energy and Environmental Security at the University of Colorado's School of Law to identify the authorities past congresses had delegated to the Executive Branch. The Center reviewed 112
statutory delegations of authority and 370 executive orders related to the environment, going back to 1937. It concluded "there exists significant authority, without further action by Congress, for the President to take action by executive order to implement various aspects of climate change policy... A proactive administration
with an understanding of the serious implications of climate change can make a significant impact immediately upon taking office."

Since taking office in January 2009, the Obama Administration has used these authorities to implement a substantial body of actions related to climate change and clean energy. They range from the Environmental Protection Agency's certification of greenhouse gases as a danger to public health and safety, which triggered regulation under the Clean Air Act, to the toughest requirements yet imposed on vehicle fuel efficiency, to an executive order that will increase the efficiency and reduce the carbon emissions of the federal government.

But substantial potential remains for executive action -- and with the failure of the 111th Congress to pass legislation that puts a price on carbon, caps U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and establishes a national portfolio standard for renewable energy, proactive presidential leadership is more important than ever.

Consequently, PCAP plans to offer the Administration a fresh list of recommendations in January 2011, at the midpoint of President Obama's first term. In the near term, PCAP recommends that President Obama implement five ideas prior to the United Nations' 16th Conference of the Parties in Cancun:

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

Pacific Coast states, Idaho, Montana and Colorado might realize some economic benefit from global warming. The rest of the country is going to suffer. Hardest hit will be southern-tier and Appalachian states.

That's the conclusion of a new study from Sandia National Laboratory. Researchers combined projections of precipitation and employment patterns to predict shifts in population and economic activity in the United States. 

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

The New York Times reports this afternoon that Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider died today of an apparent heart attack. He was 65.

Schneider was an active voice on global warming beginning in the 1980s and he worked diligently on the issue right up to his death. He was generous with his time in explaining the science to journalists. Back in 1989, before global warming became politically controversial, I phoned him out of the blue while researching my very first magazine feature on climate change, and he was graciously helpful.

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

I wrote a snarky note last month tasking the folks at The New York Review of Books and St. Martin's Press with sins of energy illiteracy, and copied them. In response we got a blast of countersnark from Joe Rinaldi, veteran publicist at St. Martin's Press. Here's his note, in full:

You've recently criticized former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in relation to his new book, LIGHTS OUT! referencing some point about global warming.

You say "I have not read the book yet." What? What "journalist" admits they haven't read something before criticizing it or any aspect of the entity, in this case the former Secretary's book or press materials which apparently have you baffled, and likely you didn't "read" that either?

A rather ringing indictment of this blog site, sadly for you all...

I wrote back as follows, and it will serve as our review of Lights Out!:

Joe, if you'll reread the blog you'll see I critiqued you, not Spencer Abraham. Your publicity material used the term "carbon monoxide" in place of carbon dioxide.

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

In an historic move, India imposed a nationwide carbon tax today, in the form of a tax on coal production.

Dubbed a clean energy measure, the tax of 50 rupees per metric ton is imposed on all coal mined or imported. It's expected to generate about $535 million to support carbon-neutral energy projects.

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

All sorts of ominous news broke last week, but two items in particular underscored the pernicious role that oil companies play in the health of the planet.

In California, a couple of Texas-based oil companies funded a successful effort to put onto the November ballot a measure that would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. That law requires industrial sites to cut greenhouse gases 25% by 2020; the California Air Resources Board estimates that AB32 would benefit the state's economy to the tune of $27 billion. The oil company measure would suspend implementation of the act until unemployment falls below 5.5% for a year - something that may not happen for years (see Paul Krugman's column today in the The New York Times).

On Friday, Rolling Stone published a scary article by Tom Dickinson, BP's Next Disaster, outlining the company's drilling project in the Arctic Ocean. The plan: starting on an artificial island connected to the mainland by a causeway, drill several miles horizontally to tap into an offshore oil resource. It's high-tech stuff, never before attempted at this scale. The big danger is that a well blow-out underneath ocean ice wouldn't be accessible for containment or clean-up until the following summer. By that time it would spread to every shore of the Arctic Ocean and poison the habitat for all marine mammals, including whales, seals and walrus. And the cold waters of Arctic don't harbor the vigorous population of microorganisms that can feed on an oil slick. An Arctic blowout would pollute the ocean for decades.

The Gulf of Mexico blowout is a national disaster. It poisons mostly American waters (right: Cuba and Mexico have cause to worry, too). An Arctic blowout will be a disaster for Canada, Russia, Greenland and Scandinavia.

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

 The local radio station KGNU hosted a panel discussion last night on climate science and the press, moderated by Jon Stewart of the BBC radio program Science in Action. Speakers were Peter Backlund, Lawrence Buja and Caspar Ammann, all of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Roger Pielke, Jr. of the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado; and Leslie Dodson, veteran network television reporter.

Most of the discussion focused on the ways that mainstream press reporters and editors misunderstand the way science works, and the ways that scientists misunderstand the way the press works. Ammann pointed out that scientists grow frustrated with continually answering the same basic questions, or having to deal year after year with issues that were settled years or decades ago. In response, he launched the realclimate.org website, for use as a reference by journalists.

Dodson acknowledged the usefulness of the website for background research, but pointed out that for television she still needs to interview real scientists. "I need something that moves," she said. Moreover, a typical television news report needs a new shot every three seconds. Even for a short 90-second story, that means at least 30 separate shots.

Backlund mourned the passing from newsrooms, under budget pressure, of specialized science and environment reporters. "Scientists are used to educating very bright graduate students," he said. "It's a challenge to deal with general reporters" with no science background whatsoever.

Some of the liveliest discussion followed questions from the audience. Asked "What can we do, personally, about climate change," Pielke noted that no amount of efficiency improvements is going to reduce worldwide energy demand. The only effective way forward, therefore, will be rapid substitution of carbon-neutral power sources for fossil fuel sources. Moreover, using as an example the 20-year process that eliminated ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons from the market, "When the technology is economically at hand, political issues fade away."

In summing up, Dodson said she was optimistic that, over the next few years, the American public will learn enough about climate and energy to take effective climate action.

That's nice to hear, but it ignores the polls. 75 percent of Americans already know enough about climate and energy to want carbon-capping legislation from Congress. Education isn't the issue. Countering the fossil fuel lobby, with its millions spent on Congressional arm-twisting, is the issue. An environmental reporter who wants a really big story should follow the money.

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

At ASES, we've been talking about energy literacy and how to improve it. The idea is that renewable energy is easier to implement when the people involved understand concepts like greenhouse gas emissions and watts per dollar.

Over the weekend, two glaring examples of energy illiteracy crossed the desk, from people one might think should have been paying attention.

The first is a marketing pitch for the new book, Lights Out!, by Spencer Abraham, former Republican senator from Michigan and secretary of energy during the first four years of the George W. Bush administration. I haven't yet read the book - and it may be a good book. The publicity package suggests that Abraham understands the reality of global warming -- but then uses this nearly impenetrable sentence:

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

By a vote of 53-47, the Senate today rejected SJ Res 26, which would have curtailed the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the resolution was widely characterized as a "dirty air" bill meant to free fossil fuel plants from executive-branch carbon emissions. It would also have invalidated recent EPA rulings on CAFE standards for autos and light trucks.

By Seth Masia
SOLAR TODAY deputy editor

A poll conducted last week by a Stanford University group found that 86% of Americans want the federal government to limit industrial air pollution, and 75% specifically want greenhouse gas emissions limited.

The study, funded by the National Science Foundation, surveyed 1,000 Americans by phone during the first week of June. It found that 75% believe that global warming is caused by human activity, 71% trust climate scientists.

In a New York Times op-ed, Stanford professor Jon A. Krosnick pointed out that other recent polls have shown declining belief in global warming and the science describing it. But, Krosnick said, those studies asked respondents if what they've seen and read in the media backs up global warming. The new study ignores the media, and asks simple direct questions about personal beliefs. Many people, Krosnick said, have personal experience of global warming, based for instance on early blooming in their own gardens.

Krosnick concluded his New York Times piece by noting that 72% of Americans polled think that business leaders are generally opposed to any measures that would mitigate global warming. He takes this as a warning to legislators, writing "A vote to eliminate greenhouse gas regulation is likely to be perceived by the nation as a vote for industry, and against the will of the people."

The Stanford poll confirms the findings of a comparable poll conducted in late May by researchers at Yale and George Mason University. That study reported 77% of respondents favor regulating CO2 a pollutant, and 65% support an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions.