EPA Close to Declaring CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says that CO2 will be declared a dangerous pollutant within a few months. This move could help push climate change legislation through Congress at a pace slightly faster than that of a melting iceberg.

A formal “endangerment finding” would force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act regardless of whether Congress passes a final climate change bill. Top senators have recently declared that they plan to delay introducing legislation that would cap carbon emissions.

From SF Gate:

The EPA kick-started the regulatory process in April when it proposed declaring carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize the public health and welfare. EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The EPA can formalize the finding anytime, now that it has closed a 60-day public comment period that netted more than 300,000 responses.

President Obama and Jackson have said they would prefer that Congress – rather than the EPA – take the lead in implementing new greenhouse gas limits. Businesses and energy industry leaders also have largely favored congressional action over EPA-imposed limits, because they believe lawmakers are better positioned to combine economic safeguards with any new carbon cap.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated, if the government were to determine that they threatened the public.

No doubt, this news will immediately cause opponents of climate change action to howl about CO2 being the source of life on this planet, and predict fines for exhaling. “Everybody hold your breath!” Har har har.

Common sense should tell these people that such a fear is absurd, but you know what they say about common sense. Climate change deniers don’t have any.

Link [SF Gate]

Oozing Methane Has Scientists Worried About Climate Catastrophe

It may start happening extremely quickly, or it may take centuries, depending on whom you ask – but enough pure methane is currently escaping into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost to make many scientists very worried about effects on climate.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is currently building up in the atmosphere at rapidly increasing rates after bubbling up from underwater vents.

From The Columbia Daily Tribune:

Researchers say air temperatures here in northwest Canada, in Siberia and elsewhere in the Arctic have risen more than 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970 — much faster than the global average. The summer thaw is reaching deeper into frozen soil, at a rate of 1.5 inches a year, and a further 13-degree temperature rise is possible this century, said the authoritative, U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.

In 2007, air monitors detected a rise in methane concentrations in the atmosphere, apparently from far northern sources. Russian researchers in Siberia expressed alarm, warning of a potential surge in the powerful greenhouse gas, additional warming of several degrees and unpredictable consequences for Earth’s climate.

Others say massive seeps of methane might take centuries. But the Russian scenario is disturbing enough to have led six U.S. national laboratories last year to launch a joint investigation of rapid methane release. And in July, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri asked his scientific network to focus on “abrupt, irreversible climate change” from thawing permafrost.

As the world warms, surface permafrost at a depth of about 5 meters is at risk of thawing. That would release a hell of a lot of methane into the atmosphere, causing a serious acceleration in climate change.

Scientists may disagree right now on how fast permafrost can thaw, but one thing is clear: there’s a very good chance that failing to act could have extremely negative consequences. While it’s encouraging that there are many research teams currently studying this issue, policymakers around the world have got to make fighting it a priority.

Link [Columbia Tribune]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

China’s Air Pollution Causes Reduction in Rainfall

Bad air quality may be affecting China’s ability to raise crops, in addition to the health and environmental problems it causes. Air pollution in the eastern part of the country has reduced the amount of light rainfall over the past half-century, and has also decreased the number of days of light rain by 23%.

From Science Daily:

The study links for the first time high levels of pollutants in the air with conditions that prevent the light kind of rainfall critical for agriculture. Led by atmospheric scientist Yun Qian at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the study appears August 15 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

“People have long wondered if there was a connection, but this is the first time we’ve observed it from long-term data,” said Qian. “Besides the health effects, acid rain and other problems that pollution creates, this work suggests that reducing air pollution might help ease the drought in north China.”

Researchers discovered that pollution’s aerosols cause smaller cloud droplets, which then have a harder time forming rain clouds. Water drops in polluted skies are up to 50% smaller than in clean skies.

Meanwhile, in Australia, drought experts have found a definite link between rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a decline in rainfall. A study confirmed that the continent’s drought is not a natural dry stretch, but a shift related to climate change.

Link [Science Daily] + [Sydney Morning Herald]
Photo credit: Flickr user robennals

Composting Contributes to Climate Change?

Composting is good for the earth, right? It takes waste and transforms it into not just something usable, but something that helps us grow food. It has become so popular, that many cities around the world are starting large-scale composting projects. But, Sustainablog reports that even the most conscientious large-scale composting operations emit methane, a greenhouse gas.

From Sustainablog:

There are actually very few published scientific studies about greenhouse gas emissions from composts, but the two that I have been able to find show that around 2-3% of the original carbon in the manure or green waste is emitted as methane (21X carbon dioxide in GHG potential) and there is also a little nitrous oxide as well (310X carbon dioxide in GHG potential).  That doesn’t sound at all bad until you do some math with the values in these publications.

If you think of it in terms of delivering a hundred pounds of nitrogen/acre (as you would for something like an organic vegetable crop) you would need to start with 8600 pounds (on a dry weight basis) of cow manure (because there is a loss of mass and because the compost is only 1.7% nitrogen).  The greenhouse gas emissions are the equivalent of 0.74 lbs CO2 per dry lb of manure.  That means that the “carbon footprint” of the 100 lbs of N in compost fertilizer is 6,403 lbs CO2.  That is 14.6 times as much as for synthetic urea fertilizer! It is the equivalent of burning 331 gallons of gasoline! (if you are interested you can see a more detailed explanation).

Sustainablog’s math was confirmed by USDA scientists.

So, does that mean that those of us with backyard compost piles should stop recycling our food and garden scraps into fertilizer? Definitely not. And it doesn’t mean that large-scale composting operations should be halted either. Sustainablog will have future posts on possible solutions, so stay tuned.

But a commenter named Ken at the Sustainablog website made a great point: “Composting converts what might otherwise be tossed into a landfill (or burned) into useful soil organic matter. Carbon will be released no matter what is done – the proper question is which choice produces the most appropriate benefit along with those costs.”

Link [Sustainablog]
Photo Credit: Flickr user normanack

The Ozone Layer if CFCs Hadn’t Been Banned

What would the ozone layer look like today, 11 years from now, 21 years from now and in 2060 if we hadn’t banned ozone-depleting CFCs? That’s the question NASA set out to answer, resulting in a series of images that shows ozone concentrations over the mid-latitudes of the Western Hemisphere, based on months of calculations by the Goddard Earth Observing System Chemistry-Climate Model.

From NASA:

Ozone is Earth’s natural sunscreen, absorbing most of the incoming ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun and protecting life from DNA-damaging radiation. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs for short)—invented in the early 1890s and first used in the 1930s as refrigerants and propellants for chemical sprays—are ozone destroyers.

The series of images starts with 1974, before CFCs had begun to do significant damage to the ozone layer. Concentrations of ozone in the stratosphere over the United States and Canada are high. By 1994, the model predicts that ozone concentrations over the region have fallen from highs above 500 Dobson Units to about 400. By the simulated year 2009, the ozone layer over much of the United States has thinned to only 300 Dobson Units.

By 2020, the model predicts that an ozone “hole”—concentrations below 220 Dobson Units—forms over the Arctic as well as the Antarctic. By 2040, the ozone hole is global. The UV index in mid-latitude cities reaches 15 around noon on a clear summer day (10 is considered extreme today). By the end of the model run, global ozone drops to less than 110 Dobson Units, a 67 percent drop from the 1970s.

So, what would the world be like if we hadn’t banned CFCs? NASA says the ultraviolet rays falling on mid-latitude cities like Washington, D.C. would be strong enough to cause DNA mutation with likely harmful effects on plants, animals and skin cancer rates.

193 nations agreed to ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and similar chemicals in the 1980s and 90s, and it’s clearly a very good thing that they did. Imagine how much more bleak our global climate situation would be if they hadn’t.

Link [NASA]

Fish Oil Could Control Methane-Packed Cow Farts

When cows fart – which they do, a lot – one of the most potent greenhouse gases in existence is released in huge quantities. That, of course, contributes to global warming. But how do we get all the cows on the planet to stop passing gas? Scientists have tried trapping it in tanks strapped to the cows’ backs and other crazy measures, and the latest one is really fishy: using fish oil to reduce cow flatulence.

From Live Science:

Specifically, including 2 percent fish oil in the diet of cattle reduces flatulence, apparently due to the omega 3 fatty acids in the oil. The study was a small one, however. The technique cut methane output of three cows by 21 percent, said Lorraine Lillis of the University College Dublin.

“The fish oil affects the methane-producing bacteria in the rumen part of the cow’s gut, leading to reduced emissions,” Lillis said. “Understanding which microbial species are particularly influenced by changes in diet and relating them to methane production could bring about a more targeted approach to reducing methane emissions in animals.”

Asked about the overall potential benefits fish-oil, Lillis told LiveScience she didn’t know yet what effect it might have on a larger group of cattle. She also acknowledged a possible shortcoming of the scheme: “There may be some trade-off as fish oil is expensive and difficult to get,” she said. Also not considered yet, she said, is whether it would put undue pressure on fish populations.

It’s certainly an interesting approach, and nowhere near as silly as cows with pink fart balloons attached to them. Of course, the best approach would be for as many people as possible to reduce the amount of meat they eat or stop altogether, which would reduce demand for cows and cut the population. But that’s too much to ask, apparently, so here we are.

Link [Live Science]
Photo credit: Flickr user Flikr

It’s Official: Urbanites Produce Less CO2 than Rural Residents

You’ve got a small home in the country surrounded by organic farmland or gardens, producing much of your own food and even supplementing your electricity with renewable power. You’ve gone green in as many ways as you can – so why is your carbon footprint still bigger than that of your city-dwelling cousin? Much of it comes down to land use and transportation.

A new report by the International Institute for Environment and Development has confirmed that urbanites generate significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than those who live in rural and suburban areas.

From Yale 360:

While the high concentration of population and businesses found in cities are often seen as a pollution “problem,” researchers found that “high densities and large population concentrations can also bring a variety of advantages for … environmental management.” For instance, while New York City emitted 58.3 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2005, the per capita average of 7.1 tons was about a third of the national average of 23.92 tons per capita in 2004, according to the study. The density of buildings and high use of public transportation in New York contributes to the lower individualemissions, according to the report. Likewise, the 2006 per capita emissions average in London was about 6.18 tons – about 55 percent of the UK’s 2004 average of 11.19 tons.

It makes sense. After all, people who live in suburban and rural areas have to drive pretty much everywhere, and that has a huge impact on carbon footprint. While rural residents who need to run to the market for a forgotten dinner ingredient will have to get in their car and travel for miles, urbanites can simply walk down the street in many cases. Plus, urban dwellings tend to be vertical, taking up less land.

We’ll always have people living in rural areas, and that’s okay – but urban living is more eco-friendly in so many ways. The green cities of the future will revolve around public transportation, walkability and vertical housing and as more people move from the suburbs to the cities, it’s quite  likely that we’ll see a big decrease in overall carbon emissions.

Link [Yale 360]

Are China’s Skyrocketing CO2 Emissions Our Fault?

We Westerners just can’t get enough of cheap Chinese goods.  While we satiate our voracious appetite for cheap gadgets and gizmos, China continues to build factories to meet that demand – factories that are polluting their air and water and emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Last year, China officially earned the title of world’s biggest CO2 emitter – but they’re refusing to accept responsibility for the emissions involved in producing goods for foreign markets. New research shows that about a third of all Chinese carbon emissions are the result of producing goods for export, pointing the finger of blame at the West rather than at China itself.

From The Guardian:

Under Kyoto, emissions are allocated to the country where they are produced. By these rules, the UK can claim to have reduced emissions by about 18% since 1990 – more than sufficient to meet its Kyoto target.

But research published last year by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) suggests that, once imports, exports and international transport are accounted for, the real change for the UK has been a rise in emissions of more than 20%.

China, as the world’s biggest export manufacturer, is key to explaining this kind of discrepancy. According to Glen Peters, one of the authors of the new report at Oslo’s Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, about 9% of total Chinese emissions are the result of manufacturing goods for the US, and 6% are from producing goods for Europe.

Academics and campaigners increasingly say responsibility for these emissions lies with the consumer countries.

Despite this new research, world leaders may not agree to a deal based on consumption rather than production of CO2, and even if they did, it’s unclear how national figures would be calculated. But Dieter Helm, professor of economics at Oxford University, says there are ways to take consumption into account, such as a border tax or carbon transfer.

It makes sense: if those factories were producing goods – and emitting CO2 – in America, the UK and other Western countries, we’d obviously be responsible for those emissions. We don’t just purchase vast amounts of consumer goods from Chinese-owned companies – so many of our own domestic companies outsource their production.

Though China needs to take some responsibility for their own dirty practices, we can’t put the blame solely on them for rapidly rising emissions. We’ve got to get our crazy consumer appetite under control.

Link [The Guardian]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

If Global Warming is to Last 1,000 Years, Why Cut Emissions?

We’re facing severe climate change for the next 1,000 years – complete with droughts, water wars, food shortages, floods and other extreme circumstances. After scientists made that less-than-rosy prediction this week, many people are already throwing in the towel, saying “It’s too late – there’s nothing we can do to stop it.”

Well, hold it right there, scientists are saying – if we don’t drastically reduce emissions, things will be even worse. It’s true that we’ve already done enough damage to affect the climate, but doing nothing means climate changes will be even larger and “intolerable”, according to Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

From MSNBC:

What the study, published Tuesday, and some earlier ones have done is raise the bar for policy changes. Many scientists now say that while it’s crucial for individuals to reduce their carbon footprints, bigger strategies that can only come from government are necessary.

“This is a global problem and while individuals can do some, it needs concerted national leadership and international agreements,” said Trenberth, who was not involved in the study.

Former Vice President Al Gore reinforced that notion Wednesday, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about how the United States might rejoin international climate talks after the former Bush administration rejected mandatory carbon curbs in favor of voluntary action and technological fixes.

Susan Solomon, the lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., said that while climate change is slow, it’s unstoppable.

Unsurprisingly, noted climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, who was the first to warn the United States government of global warming consequences back in the 1980s, has written to President Obama with a number of suggestions. He believes that Obama’s ideas are not strong enough and that we need to phase out coal plants that don’t capture or store carbon, tax carbon rather than cap it, and make nuclear power research and development a priority. These are controversial suggestions, but Hansen is insistent that they are absolutely necessary to avoid disaster.

Even if the U.S. government were to follow Dr. Hansen’s suggested plan, we can’t stop impending global warming. We can only slow it down. Trenberth says we need to begin preparing to live in a warmer world – and of course, that doesn’t mean breaking out the swimsuit and daiquiri maker. We’re not looking at much of the world becoming an island paradise, here – we’re looking at severe consequences that will kill many people, make large areas of land uninhabitable and completely change our way of life.

Link [MSNBC]
Photo credit: IRRI images

WTF: Exxon Calls for Carbon Tax to Fight Global Warming

The world’s largest oil company has done an about-face from its former stance on global warming, suddenly announcing that it backs a carbon tax. The company has denied the existence of global warming for years, funding global warming denial groups and research. Exxon boss Rex Tillerson said he believes that a carbon tax is a “more direct, more transparent and a more effective approach” to controlling greenhouse gases than any other plans that have been proposed.

From The Independent:

Exxon had already dropped its funding of lobby groups which deny the science of climate change and begun to take a softer public line, but even Mr Tillerson admitted that propounding a carbon tax had stuck in the craw until recently. However, with European-style “cap and trade” rules governing carbon emissions moving up the agenda in the US, a carbon tax may be the least worst option, he said. Environmental groups gave a sceptical response to Exxon’s U-turn, calling it a deliberate attempt to torpedo the movement for outright carbon caps and any early switch to alternative energy. “A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions – from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements, to the product choices made by consumers,” Mr Tillerson said in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson Centre for International Scholars, a Washington think-tank.

Shocking, to say the least – but Greenpeace isn’t buying it. They believe that Mr. Tillerson’s statements are nothing more than a smokescreen for Exxon’s attempts to slow down the switch to alternative fuels.

“A carbon tax is a political poison pill,” said Kert Davies, a research director at Greenpeace. “No politician in the US would propose something with the word tax in it. Being in favour of something makes Exxon look like it is being intellectual, but this threatens to derail the prevailing international discussion.”

It’s highly unlikely that a carbon tax will pass, especially in a recession, so it’s fairly ‘safe’ for Tillerson to have made such remarks. The Huffington Post’s Andrew Winston theorizes that Exxon knows that a carbon tax would ultimately be cheaper for Exxon than a cap-and-trade.

From The Huffington Post:

The wrangling over a cap-and-trade system — who will pay for permits, who’s included in the “cap”, and so on — will be ugly. But you can bet that energy and utility companies will face the most traumatic changes and restrictions. A tax, on the other hand, would wind its way through the economy to the places that the supply and demand curves dictate (those with “inelastic” demand are more likely to pay the price). Basically, even if it’s taxed at the pipeline or refinery, the actual cost could be passed on to consumers. But isn’t that the point? A tax or a cap should reduce consumption, which won’t happen without a higher price signal. Only when gas hit $4 a gallon, did people demand more energy-efficient cars.

I don’t trust Exxon for one second, so I find it hard to believe that they’re suddenly supporters of global warming legislation. They’ve gained a reputation as the world’s #1 global warming villain for a reason and any greenwashing efforts to change public opinion of them are not going to work on most of us (check out this HuffPo editorial by Robert F. Kennedy for the lowdown on Exxon’s shady past).

Link [The Independent] + [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Flickr user azrainman

To Curb Pollution, China Paying Drivers to Give Up Their Cars

China’s efforts to curb air pollution by restricting driving within Beijing city limits was quite a success, so government officials sought to extend the benefits by continuing the traffic limits. Some citizens aren’t too happy with that idea, however, because of the inconvenience of finding alternative transportation. So the Chinese government has taken to offering up to $3,600 to give up heavily polluting vehicles, and even giving drivers more money to purchase cleaner cars.

From Treehugger:

The scheme by the environmental protection bureau is only one part of a massive plan to get Beijing’s more than 350,000 high-polluting vehicles out of the city during 2009. China’s capital has already banned cars from the roads on one of five weekdays based on their license plate number as part of a six-month trial that follows broader anti-traffic restrictions during the 2008 Olympic Games. The pay-off, say officials, is a 7 percent rise in blue sky days this year (although as we’ve mentioned, that statistic remains suspicious).

The initiative would take about 10 percent of the city’s 3.5-million registered cars off the roads — an amount that is estimated to account for 50 percent of the city’s notorious vehicle pollution.

Under the new rules, anyone caught driving vehicles that don’t meet Beijing’s lowest emissions standard within the city’s Fifth Ring Road or within a radius of 10-15km from the city center will be fined 100 yuan (about $12) after a three-month grace period.

The amount of compensation given to drivers giving up heavily polluted vehicles depends on the size, type and age of the vehicle – and payment will be prorated, so the sooner they give up the offending car, the more money they get.

It’s a commendable plan, especially since it will likely raise demand for cleaner cars, giving China’s auto industry a greater incentive to build them. It’s nice to see that after years of very little action – and ever-higher greenhouse gas emissions – China is doing something real to address the problem of air pollution in Beijing. Of course, there’s a long road ahead and China is still struggling to balance environmental concerns with economic progress. Let’s hope that this represents a big step forward.

Link [Treehugger]
Photo credit: Flickr user poeloq

Japan Will Monitor Greenhouse Gases from Space

Japan will begin monitoring greenhouse gases around the world via satellite starting later this month. Officials hope that the data collected will help combat climate change, particularly as the satellite gathers info for developing countries that are not currently tracking their own emissions.

From Yahoo News:

The Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT), to be launched on January 21, will enable scientists to calculate the density of carbon dioxide and methane from 56,000 locations on the Earth’s surface, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) said.

The coverage compares with just 282 land-based observation sites as of last October, said Takashi Hamazaki, manager of the 35 billion yen ($372.9 million) JAXA project.

Equipped with two sensors, GOSAT will track infrared rays from the Earth, which will help calculate the densities of the two greenhouse gases, because they absorb the rays at certain wavelengths.

The satellite will also pick up any sign of clouds, enabling it to process data only when the sky is clear.

GOSAT, set to be in orbit for five years, will collect data once a month, with preliminary data from the satellite expected to be ready for researchers in April or May.

This new greenhouse gas tracking program is part of an attempt by Japan to meet its 2008-2012 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and becoming more vocal in global talks about climate change. Japanese officials hope GOSAT’s data will will be reflected in a report by a UN panel of scientists due out in 2014.

It’s important to get an idea of the amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being emitted by poor countries that aren’t currently paying much attention to such things, so this satellite project could be very big for the fight against global warming. It’s always encouraging to see more nations around the world dedicating themselves to taking this task seriously.

Link [Yahoo News]
Photo credit: NASA

New CO2-Eating Cement Could Help Fight Global Warming

The cement manufacturing process depends on burning vast amounts of coal and produces huge amounts of CO2, yet it’s one of the least-talked about sources of pollution. Treehugger has written about how dirty the cement industry really is in the past, and now they’re reporting that a new, green type of cement has been created. This cement isn’t just carbon neutral – an amazing feat in itself – it also absorbs tons of CO2.

From The Guardian, via Treehugger:

Making traditional cement results in greenhouse gas emissions from two sources: it requires intense heat, and so a lot of energy to heat up the ovens that cook the raw material, such as limestone. That then releases further CO2 as it burns. But, until now, noone has found a large-scale way to tackle this fundamental problem.

Novacem’s cement, based on magnesium silicates, not only requires much less heating, it also absorbs large amounts of CO2 as it hardens, making it carbon negative.

According to Novacem, its product can absorb, over its lifecycle, around 0.6 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of cement. This compares to carbon emissions of about 0.4 tonnes per of standard cement.

This new technology is already attracting the attention of the industry and investors. The only question that remains is whether the cement will perform as well as traditional cement, and used on a wide scale. If so, imagine how much good that could do for the fight against global warming – we’d actually be removing ton after ton of CO2 from the air. It’s an exciting thought – hopefully this technology will become popular around the world!

Link [The Guardian] + [Treehugger]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Climate Time-Bomb Awaits President-elect Obama

Obama’s got to be feeling the pressure. It seems that there are more expectations being hoisted upon him – before ever taking office – than any previous president of late, not the least of which is solving our climate troubles. We environmentalists are certainly hoping for a lot from him, especially considering the fact that we’re emerging from 8 years of disastrous environmental policy. After all, Obama has already pledged his commitment to fighting global warming and protecting the environment.

Amid a chorus of bad news from scientists – about everything from melting glaciers to disappearing species – Obama has his work cut out for him. The economy is collapsing, big business is ratcheting up its lobbying power in preparation for a battle and all the while, the clock is ticking.

From The Huffington Post:

Scientists fear that what’s happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.

In December 2009, diplomats are charged with forging a new treaty replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on greenhouse gases, and which the United States didn’t ratify. This time European officials have high expectations for the U.S. to take the lead. But many experts don’t see Congress passing a climate bill in time because of pressing economic and war issues.

Complicating everything is the worldwide financial meltdown. Frank Maisano, a Washington energy specialist and spokesman who represents coal-fired utilities and refineries, sees the poor economy as “a huge factor” that could stop everything. That’s because global warming efforts are aimed at restricting coal power, which is cheap. That would likely mean higher utility bills and more damage to ailing economies that depend on coal production, he said.

Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.

At least we know Obama’s on our side and plans to act – and we’ve got a Congress that will be far more open to passing important global warming legislation than ever before. Obama has already stated that he plans to address the economy, energy and the environment all at once, and that’s just what most of us were hoping to hear. 2009 may be a tough year for all of us, but the fact that we can trust the man at the helm of the ship is huge.

Link [The Huffington Post]

Australia Announces Plans to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

To the disappointment of environmentalists who had lobbied for more, Australia announced Monday that they plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 to 15% by 2020. The Australian government said the final target would depend on whether developed and developing countries like China and India could agree to binding reductions under a new UN climate treaty next year.

From The New York Times:

If the world acts together to forge deep cuts, Australia will reduce its emissions by 15 percent of its 2000 levels over 10 years starting in 2010. If there is no agreement, Australia will cut emissions by 5 percent over the same period.

No matter what the short-term target is, the government said it was committed to reducing emissions by 60 percent from 2000 levels by 2050.

“There are many obstacles to achieving a strong international agreement by the end of the next negotiating round,” the report said. “However, the least responsible path that Australia could take would be to do nothing while we wait to see how the rest of the world acts.”

The announcement drew sharp criticism from nearly all of Australia’s major environmental groups, which had been pushing for a short-term cut of at least 25 percent.

Without the (paltry) 5 to 15% cuts announced Monday, Prime Minister Rudd said Australia’s emissions would grow by about 20% by 2020. He also stated that because of Australia’s growing population, mostly from immigration, a 5% cut would represent a 27% decrease in the country’s per capita emissions from 2000 to 2020.

But, now is not the time for governments to be patting themselves on the back for deciding not to sit back and do nothing. 5% is not an acceptable target, and it is indeed extremely frustrating and disappointing to learn that they may set such a low goal. Even 15% is not good enough. We need much stronger action than this.

Link [The New York Times]

World Energy Outlook ‘Patently Unsustainable’

Grim news from the International Energy Agency this week. The organization’s annual World Energy Outlook reports that the earth simply can’t sustain current trends in energy supply and consumption, and that we’ve got to cut back, stat – but it won’t be easy.

Nobuo Tanaka, the IEA’s Executive Director, says rising imports of oil and gas from the increasingly concentrated production in a small number of countries puts us at even bigger risk of major disruptions. At the same time, our greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, putting the world on track for a global temperature increase of up to 6 degrees Celsius.

From The Daily Green:

If government policies don’t change, the world will spend $1 trillion on energy — much of it fossil fuels — and demand will grow 45% by 2030, a slightly slower rate of growth than was predicted last year because of the economic crisis. China and India would account for half the growth in world energy demand, and world cities would account for three-quarters of total demand.

Demand for oil would rise nearly 25% and will remain the world’s “main source of energy” for years to come, even under the most “optimistic” alternative scenarios. But it could come at an increasing cost, as supplies dwindle, oil supplies are nationalized, sources shift to non-traditional forms like oil shale, oil sands and deep-sea deposits, and political instability disrupts supply. “The era of cheap oil is over,” Tanaka said.

Renewable energy, even under current government policies, will become the second-biggest source of electricity sometime in the next few years.

Carbon dioxide emissions will increase 45% by 2030, if current trends continue unabated. Three-quarters of the increase will come from China, India and the Middle East. Reducing emissions to prevent a 3-degree (C) rise in temperature would take a $4.1 trillion investment ($17 per person per year) by 2030 primarily in energy efficiency so that vehicles, homes and appliances demand less energy. That investment would deliver fuel-cost savings of $7 trillion or more. But to prevent a 2-degree temperature increase, the cost would rise to $9.3 trillion, as the world invested heavily in non-polluting forms of energy, and the fuel-cost savings drops to just $5.8 trillion.

Scary. I don’t know about you, but things like this make me even more grateful that we’ve at least got President Elect Obama about to take charge, instead of another Republican who’d continue the status quo. This is no time to let oil industry buddies influence how we move forward on such a pressing problem.

Link [The Daily Green]

Cow Burps Responsible for More Greenhouse Gases than Cars

A herd of cows produces more greenhouse gases than a family car just by burping, a researcher at the University of Portsmouth said this week.  Dr. Andy Thorpe explained that 200 cows belch out enough methane each year to equal the emissions produced by a car being driven 111,850 miles.

From The Independent:

He added that while CO2 emissions have increased by 31 per cent during the past 250 years, methane, which has a higher warming potential and a longer lifetime in the atmosphere, has increased by 149 per cent during the same period.

Dr Thorpe added that methane in the atmosphere was believed to be responsible for one-fifth of global warming experienced since 1750.

The main animal producers are domestic animals, particularly cows, sheep, goats and camels which have an additional stomach, he said.

I’ve got an easy solution: sell the family car and starting riding around on cows. It’ll be way more fun, if slower. Seriously though, cutting back on the amount of meat and dairy we consume would be a huge help. The reason there are so many cows on this earth at any given time is that huge numbers are raised for meat and dairy.

A single dairy cow can produce as much as 176 pounds of methane per year. If there wasn’t as much demand, factory farms wouldn’t breed so many cows. It wouldn’t just cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, it would also reduce the amount of grain needed for cattle feed (and the land, fertilizer, pesticides and water used to grow it). It’s simple. If you’re not willing to go vegetarian, at least cut back.  Having fewer meat-centered meals per week isn’t that big a sacrifice when you consider what we’re up against.

Link [The Independent]
Photo credit: Flickr user foxypar4

BlueCool: An Eco-Friendly Way to Cool Big Trucks

Anyone who’s ever been at a truck stop even for a few minutes knows how polluting these monster vehicles are, even when the drivers are sleeping.  To keep their air conditioning running so their cabs stay cool, drivers keep their engines running at all times. That makes for an awful lot of exhaust fumes. So, a company called Webasto Products began working on a solution, which has been described as ‘high-tech ice’.

From CNN:

Webasto calls the system BlueCool. The heart of the system is a 300-pound black box that’s mounted on the truck’s frame rail. As the trucker drives, the system sends refrigerant through a matrix of graphite and a water/glycol mixture inside the box, creating blocks of ice.

When the truck is stopped, the driver turns on an air handler that circulates coolant around the ice and blows cold air from the unit into the bunk area of the cab. The fan and circulation pump use only 3.5 to 10 amps from the truck’s battery — which means there’s no danger of draining the battery, Webasto says.

“When it’s running it doesn’t have any emissions or use any fuel,” said Thomas. He said BlueCool can maintain a comfortable bunk temperature for up to ten hours.

The EPA has estimated that idling trucks consume nearly a gallon of fuel per hour, while emitting nitrogen oxides and particulates, which contribute to smog.  This problem incited Webasto to launch a campaign to raise awareness of the issue, called Make a Leap.  As part of the campaign, a trucker took a BlueCool-equipped truck on a summer-long publicity tour of truck stops across the nation.  Truckers are excited about the prospect of using less diesel, and the system would pay for itself within a year.

Link [CNN]

Arctic Sea ‘Foaming with Methane’ as Permafrost Melts

Scientists have discovered the first evidence that millions of tons of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, are being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed.  It’s not yet confirmed, but if it turns out to be true, it could be an extremely bad sign for the future of every living thing on earth.  Scientists believe that underground stores of methane, when suddenly released into the atmosphere, cause rapid increases in global temperatures.

From The Independent:

In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through “methane chimneys” rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a “lid” to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.

They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.

Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.

The area where the methane was discovered covers thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

So, basically, the damage we’ve already done has led to the permafrost melting.  The permafrost had been keeping all of this methane from escaping.  As the methane escapes, it will accelerate global warming at such a dramatic pace that there might not be anything we can do to counteract the effects.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we should stop all of our efforts to fight global warming – the opposite is true.  This news, if it’s confirmed, should light a fire under our collective asses and force us to get serious about the things that are causing global warming.  It might be too late, but isn’t fighting better than sitting around waiting for Mother Nature to squash us like ants?

Link [The Independent] via [WorldChanging]

Next Page »