Forget Fed Legislation—Building Energy Code Has Already Been Decided

I’d really been focused on the potential impact of federal climate legislation. So I don’t know how I missed the fact that when governors of 50 states accepted $3 billion in stimulus money in February in the form of state energy grants from the Department of Energy that they were also agreeing to adopt and enforce building energy codes that meet or exceed ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. This model code covers new buildings and existing buildings with major remodeling, equipment replacement or renovations.

By taking the money, about $1.5 billion of which has been so far dispersed, the governors also agreed to be 90% compliant with the latest energy code by 2017.

Uncertain as to what it meant, I rang up Jeffrey P. Harris, vice president for programs with the Alliance to Save Energy based in D.C. (more…)

Political Divide on Climategate

As a liberal Democrat, I was a little disconcerted when I took a look at the web site for the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The problem? All of the controversy about climategate and the recent damning emails were addressed by phrases such as “the majority” and thoughts such as “How dare we question our government—NASA after all put a man on the moon.”

In a balanced story posted on CNN I read two views:

Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin said the e-mails in question poke a hole in the conclusion that the question of human influence on climate change is settled. The Republican said the E-mails “read more like scientific fascism than scientific process.”

Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, called the focus on the e-mails a distraction from the “catastrophic threat to our planet.”

But on the Web site of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the highlighted videos presented only one view: the issue has been decided. Despite my liberal leanings (I am from the South where my mother ran away from boarding school to go freedom riding with Dr. King), I don’t believe that we are the sole “intellectual elite” when it comes to science. Whatever the truth about the many causes of global warming, I think there are enough intellectually elite people like John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, who question the science. They say what everyone should be saying—let’s bring it all out in the open and have a debate. If the temperature has been rising at an alarming rate for 50 years and the consequences could be catastrophic, surely Congress could take a few months to hear both sides and come to a real consensus.

Climategate: CRU Head Steps Aside Amid Investigation

As internal investigations get underway, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, has stepped aside. Jones was among the scientists in the hacked emails who allegedly discussed the destruction of data subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

See update in WSJ: Climate-Change Scientist Steps Aside Amid Probe

Climategate: Flawed Science, Secrets and the Great Debate Over Global Warming

Remember post 9/11 when there was a certain faction in U.S. society that said people who didn’t wear a flag pin on their lapels were un-American? That analogy may be appropriate for the debate on global warming–or rather the lack of debate. People who did not buy into the theory that global warming is manmade were virtually shunned by all “thinking” society.

So now an inconvenient truth of another sort appears to be in the making as a result of leaked documents and hacked emails written by scientists at Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., the most influential and most-oft quoted institution on the global warming front.

How, society–maybe even the U.S. Congress–is probing a little deeper. It’s a firestorm that is gathering air—did scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia prevent data contrary to their views from leaking out to the public? Did they blackball opposing scientific analysis and present flawed data to support their theories on global warming?

One email string entitled Harry Read Me has been particularly worrisome because it implies that the data that supports global warming by manmade causes is severely flawed.

On RealClimate, a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists, recently posted a letter from Peter Laut, professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency.

I’ll share the first few paragraphs here–Laut makes a compelling argument:

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 the nations of the world will discuss possible ways to slow down global climate change. The main goal will be to organize a coordinated reduction of man?made greenhouse gas emissions. With all nations contributing according to their ability.

But: Is global warming perhaps caused by the sun?

An important question concerns the physical cause of global warming. Is it primarily caused by changes in solar activity or by man?made greenhouse gasses? The answer has enormous consequences for the way mankind should react. If the dominant cause for global warming is solar activity, then there is no reason for mankind to waste resources in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And no reason to have the climate conference in Copenhagen. If, however, the dominant cause is man?made greenhouse gasses, then a reduction of emissions may be absolutely necessary in order to prevent a global climate catastrophe.

The overwhelming majority of scientists, represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has for many years collected and analyzed observational data and carried out model simulations in order to resolve this question and has arrived at the conclusion that the results overwhelmingly point at the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the cause. There are practically no observations which render it probable that solar influences play more than a minor role.

Now, in spite of the almost unanimous message from the world’s scientific community, there is a small group of scientists who try to promote the solar theory. They are supported by a massive network of journalists, film makers, TV producers, authors, politicians and grass roots. This group is centered around two Copenhagen climatologists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis?Christensen.

The real crime here is that there has been no opportunity for an open debate. That is not to say that the planet does not need a good scrubbing down or that non-sustainable resources should not be protected and used with the utmost care. What it does say is that as the planet warms, we should devote our limited financial, intellectual and governmental resources to technology and policies that will actually make a difference.

U.S. May Still Bring Gift to Copenhagen Climate Summit

On his way to Oslo to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama will attend the Copenhagen global climate summit on Dec. 9, according to anonymous White House officials. While the rest of the world has been clamoring for substantive U.S. energy legislation, the president will not be able to deliver on that front. What he is expected to do is deliver at the summer is a U.S. target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

That expected target is a 17% drop in greenhouse gases below 2005 levels by 2020.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

White House officials said the decision to attend came after productive climate discussions between Obama and the heads of China and India, two developing nations whose participation is seen as critical to any successful effort to negotiate an agreement.

Those discussions left the president optimistic that his presence in Copenhagen could seal a meaningful - though not legally binding - climate deal, meeting the standard that Obama previously set for his attendance at the summit, the officials said.

Fewer Americans See Hard Evidence of Global Warming

Widespread awareness of global warming is often attributed to former United States Vice President Al Gore’s movie “Inconvenient Truth”.

The 2006 documentary makes the argument that if the human activities that cause global warming go unchecked, then in 10 years time the end result will be a major catastrophe involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves.

Despite distribution that included 50,000 free DVDs in the U.S. and $49 million at the box office, the inconvenient truth today may be that fewer Americans believe there is solid evidence of global warming. That’s the conclusion of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30 through Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines.

According to the survey, just 57% of respondents today say there is solid evidence of rising global temperatures compared with 71% who held that same belief in April 2008. Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

Fewer than four-in-ten (36%) now say global warming is mostly caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels, while 16% say it is occurring mostly because of natural environmental patterns.

And while the GOP recently made headlines by boycotting a U.S. Senate to begin marketing up the democratic sponsored Kerry-Boxer climate bill, even across the political spectrum fewer Americans are convinced that solid evidence of global warming exists.

The trend was most prevalent among independents, of which only 53% now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, according to the Pew study, have become even more so. Just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Democrats have also backed off in their belief of solid evidence to 75% today, down from 83% last year.

Amid growing skepticism, the survey still finds more support than opposition for a policy to set limits on carbon emissions. Half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices; 39% oppose imposing limits on carbon emissions under these circumstances.

There are two dueling pieces of energy legislation in Congress: the Waxman-Markey energy bill, widely known as the “cap-and-trade” bill, introduced in May of this year; and the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill, proposed at the end of September. Cap-and-trade would allow businesses to trade or buy carbon credits if they exceed specified limits.

However, a third option, announced last week by Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, aimed at finding middle ground and developing a piece of legislation that could pass the Senate with 60 votes, would encompass a cap-and-trade program but also include some measures important to Republicans such as strengthening nuclear power in America.

With the Health Care Reform slowing winding its way through Congress, experts say the prospects for the passage of major energy legislation this year are dim.

Cap-and-Trade Fraught with Uncertainty

Here’s an excerpt from a Washington Post story today entitled “Climate bill faces hurdles in Senate”.

The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.

The story drew a heated response from NREI Editor-in-Chief Matt Valley. I share his remarks here:

From my point of view, I think the majority of Americans who follow this issue are highly skeptical about a governmental plan that calls for the issuance of permits for greenhouse gas emissions, and they should be. The rules of cap-and-trade as currently proposed seem somewhat arbitrary and capricious from a business person’s point of view. The timing for this controversial idea is particularly bad given the weak state of the economy.

Just as important, supporters of cap-and-trade admit that it’s going to initially raise utility bills in an effort to curb Americans’ consumption of energy. The average Joe is in no mood to be part of a grand experiment that leaves him paying more for utilities, not now. It’s basically political suicide for many legislators who are not on the far left to get behind this measure, particularly in energy-producing states.

I personally do not buy into the idea that it’s inevitable cap and trade will pass now or at some point in the near future. Rather, I believe it’s much more likely that legislators will be forced to go back to the drawing board, draft something much less onerous that business and industry can live with, and which won’t be called “cap and trade.”

Those are my two cents.

Zero Population Growth: An Idea Before Its Time?

Remember in the 1970s and 1980s those tree-hugger types with the thoughtful beards and the worn flannel plaid shirts who parroted the phrase “zero population growth”? Not to single out males but it seems that I recall it was a fairly male phenomenon, which may have held appeal beyond environmental reasons.

But whatever about my motherly instincts—the reason I bring this up is that these guys may have been on the right track, without even knowing that the third reason to reduce offspring is that the U.S. allocation for greenhouse gas emissions per person is going to be lower than some other notable due to our rising population if the U.N. climate pack is signed in December. In fact, according to this Reuters story I found a couple of weeks ago, Russian citizens will be able to emit twice as much as American citizens. That’s 3 tons of greenhouse gases per each American citizen versus 5.7 million tons for Russian citizens.

Here’s how some of the other countries stack up according to the story “Rising U.S. population makes 2050 climate cut harder”:

French citizens would have the lowest emissions in 2050, at 1.7 tonnes, since their emissions were less than half Russian or U.S. levels in 1990. Italians would have 1.8 tonnes each, Britons 2.1, Japanese 2.5, Canadians 2.7 and Germans 3.4.

Getting a grip on the economics, the environment and unknowns of global warming policy

I was interviewing an economist yesterday about the economic forecast for the coming year. He said businesses have to change their assumptions that baby boomers will continuously create demand for goods and homes—from cradle to grave—or at least to grave now. And I think that’s an interesting point on a lot of levels. Obviously given the sheer numbers, U.S. business was not wrong to ramp up to meet boomer demand. What business could not know was that boomers would lose 40% of their 401Ks in a global economic meltdown when most of these WWII babies were looking at retirement brochures.

So there’s a big X factor and that goes for climate change, global warming, and ultimately any federal legislation that addresses that issue and the retooling of American industry. Because of the X factor, the unknown, it’s even more important to study the opinions and options available. It’s not enough to choose a side (pro global warming v. against global warming)—that’s far too simplistic a view to be of any use on such complicated topic. What energy we use, how much and where it comes from is going to change over the next few decades. There are an infinite number of x factors. And just as the environment matters, so do economics. In that vein, here is one well-thought out opinion we found in the Wall Street Journal today.

Time for Inaction on Global Warming

By PETE DU PONT

“Global” and “warming” are perhaps the two most important words used to justify the approaching governmental control of our economy. In reality, global warming is barely occurring: In the 30 years starting in 1977, warming amounted to 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and in the next hundred years it is estimated to be about half a degree per decade.

Business: Go to Your Corners and Come Out Fighting

A few weeks back on this blog a story was posted about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging the EPA on the validity of global warming. I waxed on a bit about how if business–or anyone for that matter–wants proof that global warming is real, what’s the problem with providing that proof?

But the battle over global warming is really about money–businesses that do not want to spend the additional money to reduce their respective carbon footprints–and those that have already begun to invest in a cleaner greener future. Of all the various businesses who could oppose global warming, and of all the unlikely canditates to actually support it, utilities are the ones breaking ranks.

Here’s an excerpt of the story from MarketWatch:

Exelon and even some coal-fired power companies such as AEP now find themselves at odds with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by supporting current climate-change legislation.

Besides the chamber, the opposition also includes a small, coal-powered utility cooperatives, refiners such as Valero Energy Corp. and others that face sharply higher expenses for emitting greenhouse gases under current climate-change proposals.

PG&E Corp., parent of Pacific Gas & Electric, California’s biggest utility, was the first to formally break with the chamber.

In a Sept. 18 letter, PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee cited “fundamental differences” over climate change: We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored.”

Under the Waxman-Markey bill passed in the House in June, the U.S. government would certify 4.6 billion carbon allowances in 2012 at an inflation-adjusted price of $17.46 a ton, placing the value of the U.S. carbon market at $84 billion. That legislation was sponsored by Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Select Committee on Independence and Global Warming, and Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

« Previous Page — Next Page »