Knowing is Half the Battle

"Knowing is half the battle". GI Joe was right 20 years ago when I sat watching the show every afternoon after school. And believe it or not, the Joes are right today.

I'm a big fan of the website Skeptical Science, which is a great reference for those who want to learn more about climate change. The site has now released The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. Highly recommend reading. Duke and the rest of the Joes would be proud.

The Power of One

The challenges posed by climate change are enormous. We have to make a global effort to fundamentally change how we produce and consume energy. But too many people focus on the cost and scale, arguing that significantly reducing emissions will destroy our economy, without fully understanding the long-term benefit to our environment.

Let's take a step back. Don't get distracted by solely focusing on what everyone around the world has to do in order to avoid the risks of global warming. Instead, focus on what you or your family can do to reduce your energy bill and save some cash. Check out the Maryland Energy Administration for some useful hints.

Now, consider the cumulative effect of lots of individuals taking these small steps to reduce our energy and water use, and save money. I know - revolutionary.

Elections, Climate Change, and Energy

This is an excellent post by Andy Revkin on the implications of the mid-term elections on climate change and energy. Check out the "heat ladder" link toward the end. It's an article from 2007 which still resonates today. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

More Evidence of Change

The impacts of climate change are taking place right now, not in some far flung future. There is a lot being done to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increase the use of low carbon energy around the world, but more is needed to meet the scale of the challenge.

Climate Change - A Threat to Prosperity and Security

The UK Foreign Secretary gave a speech last week at the Council for Foreign Relations focused entirely on climate change.

Some of the key extracts from the speech -

· “Climate change is perhaps the twenty-first century’s biggest foreign policy challenge along with such challenges as preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. A world which is failing to respond to climate change is one in which the values embodied in the UN will not be met. It is a world in which competition and conflict will win over collaboration.”

· "You cannot have food, water, or energy security without climate security. They are interconnected and inseparable."

· "We must all take responsibility for this threat. We must take robust action. But we must also be clear-headed about the difficulties of reaching agreement and not lose heart when the going gets tough."

· "We need to shift investment urgently from high carbon business as usual to the low carbon economy – this means building an essentially decarbonised global economy by mid century…To drive that shift in investment from low to high carbon we need a global climate change deal under the UN."

· "Many say that Copenhagen failed because of process. The diplomats and the politicians had created a negotiation that was too difficult and too complex. This misses the point. International treaties are an outcome – not an input – of political bargains. If you have made the political commitment to deliver, you can make the process work to deliver"

· "That is why the coalition to which I belong has committed itself to being the greenest government ever in the UK; and why with others in Europe we are calling on the EU to commit to a 30% cut in emissions by 2020 without waiting for the rest of the world to act."

· "But we will not succeed if we act alone. We must aim for a framework that is global and binding. It needs to be global because climate change affects everyone. Only a response that allows everyone a voice will generate a sense of common purpose and legitimacy."

· "There is no global consensus on what climate change puts at risk, geopolitically and for the global economy, and thus on the scale and urgency of the response we need. We must build a global consensus if we are to guarantee our citizens security and prosperity. That is a job for foreign policy."

· "We have a shared vision to meet the millennium development goals. But in a world without action on climate change, that vision will remain a dream. The effort of the last ten years will be wasted."

· "Climate change is one of the gravest threats to our security and prosperity. Unless we take robust and timely action to deal with it, no country will be immune to its effects. However difficult it might seem now, a global deal under the UN is the only response to this threat which will create the necessary confidence to drive a low carbon transition. We must be undaunted by the scale of the challenge. We must continue to strive for agreement. We must not accept that because there is no consensus on a way forward now that there will never be one. And to change the debate, we must imaginatively deploy all of the foreign policy assets in our armory until we have shaped that global consensus."

· "We have to get this right. If we do, we can still shape our world. If we do not, our world will determine our destiny."

OECD - US Economic Report

Nothing like curling up with a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to ease any insomnia you might suffer from. To be fair the report is actually a great resource for US facts/figures, though I'm not sure about its claim that the US is accountable for only 15% of global emissions. This is far lower than the ~20% figure I've seen in the past (and ~22% for China). You can read the summary here.

A few highlights:

* The climate section of the report is framed in the context of reducing Americans' exposure to risk. It also identifies the corollary benefits of taking action - cleaner air, improved health conditions, enhanced energy/national security due to a reduction in foreign oil imports

* The report makes a very strong case for putting a price on carbon - least cost option, driver of RD&D, etc., and argues that the EPA is a less cost effective tool and unlikely to deliver the necessary emissions reductions

* It calls for passage of US climate legislation but: i) opposes the removal of provisions which do not take the indirect land use effect of bio-fuels into account (i.e., food shortages, increased prices, etc.); ii) opposes the inclusion of BTAs (border tax adjustments), also known as BAMs (Border Adjustment Mechanisms) in US parlance; and iii) suggests limiting offsets so revenues raised can be used as a deficit reduction tool.

I'm not sure what impact the report will have on the US debate, if any. But it's interesting to note that an organization set up to counterbalance OPEC is calling on the US to reduce its emissions and put a greater emphasis on investment in low carbon technology.

Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade

I came across this recent op-ed in the Houston Chronicle whose authors argue for a carbon tax which increases over time. I'm a strong supporter of a price on carbon but I'm not convinced about the efficacy of a tax for a few reasons. First, I think its a hard sell these days. Cap and trade has a difficult enough time getting traction in a down economy, I can't imagine a hard tax getting through. Secondly, I don't think it'll be as straight forward as proponents suggest. Anyone who has ever done their own taxes knows how complex they can be.

Most importantly, I don't think a carbon tax offers the same environmental certainty you get from a cap and trade program, in which the cap tightens over time. Not only does a "cap" ensure the emissions reductions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, the "trade" allows for greater flexibility in the market place enabling business (that's right, business) to make the appropriate choice in meeting its targets. But it's also important to remember that cap and trade is one element of a wider suite of options needed to deal with the challenge.

Cap and Trade - A Bipartisan Success Story

I came across this excellent article recently on the history of cap and trade in the US. It's over a year old but that only effects a few aspects of the piece. It provides a great overview of how cap and trade became one of the most successful environmental programs in history under the George H.W. Bush Administration. Stunningly, it was a bipartisan effort. I know, consider your mind blown. So for those who doubt the efficacy of such a program this is a gentle reminder that it can be done, it can be successful, and it won't ruin the economy.

Action in spite of Uncertainty

This is an excellent piece from the Financial Times about the uncertainty surrounding climate change. It goes to great lengths to spotlight areas of agreement and areas where the evidence is less clear (e.g., it's pretty much a given that we'll experience a 1.5C rise in temps, but not so clear cut on 4C).

If you don't have time to read the whole article, skip to the last paragraph:

Meanwhile, concentrations of airborne carbon increase year on year. Once carbon is in the atmosphere, it can stay there for a century, continuing its warming effect. The problem is that if action is delayed until these areas of uncertainty are resolved, the world may find it is too late.

I've written about this before. The whole point of dealing with climate change is to manage our exposure to risk despite the uncertainty.

First Solar in China

Interesting Washington Post article on China highlighting the challenge of US businesses operating there. Doesn't mean we should now embrace the Homer Simpson philosophy of "never try" but it does reflect the need for greater, sustained engagement with the largest energy consumer and greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter in the world.

Economist article on climate impacts

This is a solid, if slightly wonky, article from the Economist. If you don't want to get bogged down in "Rossby waves" (not to be confused with Cosby waves) then just remember this:

Episodes of heavy rain and snowfall are now more common around the world than they were 50 years ago, according to the IPCC’s 2007 review of the literature, which is to be expected in a warming world; warmer air can carry more water, and so more can be released when the conditions are right. Reflecting this trend, the Indian monsoon — which in terms of absolute levels of rainfall changed little over the 20th century—has been seeing more of its rainfall in extreme events than it used to. No one of those extreme events can be laid at the door of worldwide climate change; nor can the Russian heatwave. The pattern of increases, though, fits expectations—and those expectations see things getting worse.

So while you can't directly pinpoint one particular event to climate change, you can look at current trends which are cause for serious concern.

Let there be light!

This is a great piece on the growth in the UK's solar industry. Key takeaway:

The growth in jobs is attributable as much to the nature of the Government scheme as it is the size—offering predictable, guaranteed long-term support for the industry, rather than the more sporadic offers of short-term grants and tax breaks that have been so common across the Globe.

It's all about long-term certainty. Otherwise you have peaks and valleys for renewable energy development. And not to sound like a broken record here, but these policies create jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

Could use a little wind out here

While the chances of comprehensive climate change and energy legislation seem less and less likely, it's nice to see some good news coming out of the states. This is an interesting piece on the largest US wind farm to date. Home grown energy that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, provides a clean, safe, and secure source of energy, and creates thousands of jobs. Dare I say it's a win-wind?

The Links

This isn't about golf, it's about global warming. The warning signs are right in front of us. I wrote earlier about Greenland's melting glaciers. Now take a look at this excellent article from Andrew Revkin of the NY Times spotlighting the links between the heatwaves in Russia and the mind boggling floods in Pakistan.

Canary in the Moulin?

This is a fascinating, but fairly long, report from the Daily Mail's science editor (a self-described climate skeptic as you will read). It focuses on the research being conducted by British scientists in Greenland who are studying the dramatic increase in summer melt waters over the past decade.

Aside from his play-by-play of what's happening in Greenland, he writes the following:

For many people, what I am looking at is the beginning of the end; the first concrete sign that the stability upon which our civilisation depends is about to crumble into an overheated future.

The key message is "the stability upon which our civilisation depends is about to crumble." Some people will argue that the earth has gone through climate shifts in the past and therefore this one is nothing to worry about. But that is misguided to say the least. Our world's population and economy have grown at remarkable rates based on a generally stable and livable environment. Climate change directly threatens that stability and therefore threatens our economic prosperity and national security.

The Clean Economy Race

So regular GreenMachine readers, you'll have pretty much guessed by now where I sit on climate change and clean energy policy. And I've stressed away the months as the chances of comprehensive legislation have whittled away to almost nil. I've come to accept that these things happen. But I found it especially interesting that Congress is doing this while China is doing this. It makes you wonder who is going to win the 21st Century economic race?

More melting leads to more drilling

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from burning fossil fuels is leading to global warming. Global warming is leading to a melting Arctic. A melting Arctic is leading to more fossil fuels. The circle of life.

In Case of Emergency, Break Glass

Alright, so a comprehensive climate change and clean energy bill is all but dead in 2010 and, depending on your mindset, for the foreseeable future. Despite my cynical and pessimistic exterior, I'm an optimist at heart and hold out hope for progress even at some point this year. I know, call me crazy.

So why the optimism, you might ask? Because I have to believe that logic and the moral obligation to act will win out the day. Right now, we have a House bill that passed in the the Summer of 2009 and multiple Senate options including, but not limited to, the the American Power Act (APA). The problem - they're hitting a political glass ceiling.

But now, right now, is the time to break the glass. Multiple reports this year have highlighted the link between human activity and global warming, the associated impacts, and our increased exposure to risk. The latest came out yesterday from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its "State of the Climate 2009" report makes very clear that global warming is undeniable and we need to begin reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions now.

There are obvious challenges in moving toward a low carbon, sustainable economy. But the alternative is simply not something we are going to be able to handle.

Friedman Op-Ed

Tom Friedman has an interesting op-ed in today's NY Times. I think his last point is the most important - advocates of comprehensive climate change and clean energy policy have to get better at communicating why urgent action is necessary. It's easy to say no. It's much more difficult to come up with solutions to an extremely complex challenge and then communicate those solutions effectively.

DoD and DoE work together in perfect harmony

In the aftermath of a failed climate change bill, it's good to see the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense working together. On Tuesday, the two departments announced a Memorandum of Understanding "to accelerate clean energy innovation and enhance national energy security."

China: #1 emitter, #1 energy consumer

If you haven't already seen the Wall Street Journal article on China's rising energy consumption, take five minutes out of your busy schedule to give it a read. The article identifies some of the key implications of China's increasing influence on global energy markets and what that means for the US.

But don't stop there. Be sure to take a look at WRI's analysis of how and why China has gotten to this point.

New York Times editorial

Interesting editorial from the NY Times on why the climate bill failed. I'm not in a position to agree or disagree but I found the last line of the piece to be an excellent point - "global warming and oil dependency are clear and present threats to American security."

At least August should be quiet

In a year when one of the worst environmental disasters in US history has occurred, and in a year on track to be the warmest on record, legislation to address climate change and clean energy gets "shelved". Amazing.

You would think everyone would try just a little bit harder to get this done.

You'd be amazed what you can do if you try

I recently wrote about how proponents of comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation need to come up with a simpler and clearer narrative. But such a narrative obviously needs more detail as the conversation gets further into the weeds. I've written a lot about the need for action based on the science. In addition I've had a few posts on the economic and national security cases for acting urgently. One angle I really haven't delved into as much I would have liked is the technology aspect of this debate. The technology is obviously available to us and we are starting to see that with the right policies we can deploy these resources on a much larger scale that will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and an increase in new jobs.

So this begs the question, why aren't we trying harder?

So, what your saying is, I've still got a chance?

But not really. The White House held its long awaited meeting with a bipartisan group of Senators on Tuesday to discuss the prospects of climate legislation. By all accounts, it turned out to be a somewhat lackluster affair. And today we heard a speech from the President on immigration policy which suggests the next legislative priority remains up for grabs.

What continues to surprise me in all this back and forth is the lack of a coherent narrative for those who support comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation. We have to come up with a very simple, straightforward argument for passing a bill now, not next year, or 2012, or 2013. Here's my shot at it.

We need to take action now because the science demands it, the economy needs it, technology exists to enable it, and our national security depends on it.

Let me know what you think.

"Climategate" a farce of global proportions

Emails were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) last November. While thousands of emails were taken, only a handful provided fodder for those who reject the science underpinning climate change and muddied the waters for those who don't follow the issue closely. While this controversy stoked a lot of emotion, and high profile skeptics began ringing the death knell for climate change and clean energy policy, we are shown once again that "Climategate" and all its accompanying furor was in fact built on a house of cards.

I highly recommend this article from the Ecocentric blog hosted by Time. It provides some critical background and sets the record straight. Now let's move on and address the problem instead of pretending there isn't one.

Gotta act, gotta act, gotta act right now

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Julia Slingo from the UK's Met Office this week. She was in Washington for a couple of days on business. I participated in only a couple of her meetings but walked away with a renewed sense of purpose. It's always good to talk with an expert who can communicate lastest developments in climate science so effectively. It's also a reminder that, despite all the political distractions and white noise that tends to consume an outsized portion of the policy debate, we need to act urgently before we reach a breaking point.

More on pricing carbon

So the week started with a speech by the President and ended with an apology to BP. It felt like the Twilight Zone. But after all the hoopla, it still looks as if the Senate has no interest in putting a price on carbon. I've written about the need to do so here and here. One more time can't hurt. This is another great primer on what it means to charge for something that has, to date, been free. I'm not a fan of his analogy about capping how many miles you can drive, but that's just a personal preference. Better to stick with the open bar reference.

So what happens if we don't do anything?

The debate around climate change and clean energy has focused largely on the cost of taking action. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its analysis of a bill introduced by Sens. Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT). It found the cost to average consumers to be fairly negligible. But as the Economist points out, the analysis misses a critical element - the cost of inaction.

More and more we are seeing the real time impacts of climate change. Companies are already being encouraged to adopt relevant adaptation policies they will need in order to cope with an unpredictable and shifting climate in the coming decades. It's absolutely critical that while we debate various policy options moving forward we never lose sight of the fact that the cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of action.

As many of you will know I'm a big fan of placing a price on carbon. Right now we get to emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) for free when we know their effect on the environment comes with a cost. Ezra Klein recently posted an excellent piece which focused on pricing externalities. In this case it was specific to oil but you only need to replace that term with CO2 or GHGs and you've got a strong argument for taking into account the full cost of carbon.

Without doing something now, we place ourselves at much greater risk to weather extremes. We're already committed to a certain amount of exposure, but why push the envelope further?

How are we going to pay for that?

When I was a kid, I would always pester my mom about buying Oreos, Cocoa Puffs, Cheetos and whatever other deliciously unhealthy products spoke to me from the grocery store shelves. And her response was always "how are we going to pay for that?" Seeing as the money in my pockets was being set aside for important things like Star Wars figures, I just shrugged my shoulders and moved on.

Now, while still setting aside some cash for Oreos (me) and Star Wars (my kids), my main focus these days is how the US pays for a transition to a low carbon 21st Century economy. Funny how priorities change over the course of 20 years, but I digress.

In my post from Friday I wrote about how the status quo is no longer an option. In his article, Browstein referenced a recent report issued by the American Energy Innovation Council. It's fairly brief as reports go. The key recommendations:

- create an idependent national Energy Strategy Board
- invest $16 billion per year in clean energy innovation
- Create Centers of Excellence with strong domain expertise
- Fund ARPA-E at $1 billion per year
- Establish and fund a New Energy Challenge Program to build large-scale pilot projects

It's an excellent report and obviously has the backing of some of America's biggest brains. But "how are we going to pay for that?" So much effort is being put into comprehensive strategies or various legislative proposals for clean energy, but so few Members of Congress are willing to accept the fact that in order to pay for these initiatives we need a price on carbon.

The House has come up with a mechanism to do so in the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act and the Senate has the American Power Act (APA). If Congress decides to bail on these proposals and go with energy only, there is no way it will find the money to pay for the significant changes we need to make. I hope Members don't just shrugg their shoulders and move on to the next cool toy.

Busy Week

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a Resolution of Disapproval this week which, if successful, likely would have signalled the death knell for climate change and energy legislation in the Senate. Fortunately the resolution, which would have removed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to regulate carbon dioxide, failed.

Not that it stood much of chance of going anywhere beyond the Senate had it passed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wouldn't have allowed it to come to a vote in the House, and President Obama would have vetoed the resolution if it had arrived on his desk.

This is a good thing. The fact is the US needs a new, 21st Century approach to climate change and clean energy policy - the status quo is no longer an option. The science demands it, our economy needs it, technology exists to enable it, and our national security depends on it.

And Americans know there is a problem despite the best efforts of very well funded backers who have one overarching objective - sow doubt and confusion. So what are we waiting for?

Will he? Won't he?

Oh the drama. There was a bit of a lull on the Hill after Sen. Graham pulled his support for climate legislation. But now Sen. Reid (D-NV)appears to be moving things forward according to Roll Call. Key takeaway from this article - even if everything falls into place, the calendar is conspiring against full success.

It's electric

Boogie, woogie, woogie. Interesting blog post on Nissan's push for increased production of electric vehicles. The author links this effort to the BP oil spill and China's recent announcement of significant electric vehicle subsidies.

Skeptics will argue that a massive shift away from oil is a pipe dream. But I always remind those folks that the "The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil." (A quote from Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the Saudi oil minister during the 1970's.)

There are so many reasons to act now and none that justify delay.

Is this the "big push"?

President Obama delivered a speech today at Carnegie Mellon University which covered a number of topics including a significant focus on the need for comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Is this speech the beginning of a "big push" to deliver a bill? We'll see how things play out in the Senate next week but I remain so cautiously optimistic that it borders on pessimism.

Wind and the West

I just came across this article from the NY Times on a recent study published by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). Essentially it debunks the notion that renewables can not significantly displace conventional power sources.

It's also interesting to note that a record breaking amount of wind energy capacity was installed last year in the US. And while a recent industry study projects a positive mid-term outlook, "2010 marks the first time since 2004 that the U.S. wind industry will not surpass the previous year's growth level."

It makes you wonder what's needed to increase and sustain long-term growth? Hmmm, right, regulatory certainty and significant financial flows.

In case you missed it . . .

. . . the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that April 2010 was the hottest year on record. Be sure to think about this when anyone talks about the bad winter we just had or that global warming has stopped.

NAS & EPA - What More Do You Need?

Since the grand creation of GreenMachine2050, one of my main objectives has been to lay the foundation for the need to take action on climate change - because the science is clear and the potential catastrophic impacts require it. Don't forget to check out the all important disclaimer.

The one avid reader out there other than myself will be familiar with my Fact or Fiction pieces that I usually try to do on Fridays. These posts have been sporadic unfortunately and I think I'm going to move more towards addressing the problem and away from identifying the problem. The evidence is overwhelming and there are a number of dedicated sites that focus solely on the science such as RealClimate and Skeptical Science.

But before I do that, I want to draw your attention to recent reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The reports reinforce the scientific evidence that global warming is happening and is likely due to human activity and the increased production of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).

The NAS reports, covering the science, mitigation, and adaptation, are the most recent US studies which make the case for urgent action. The report on science concludes that a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. In its report on mitigation, NAS concludes that meeting internationally discussed targets for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and associated increases in global average temperatures will require a major departure from business as usual in how the world uses and produces energy, and calls for some type of price on carbon. And finally, in its report on adaptation, NAS concludes that adaptation to climate change calls for a new paradigm - one that considers a range of possible future climate conditions and associated impacts, some well outside the realm of past experience.

The EPA, in its report entitled Climate Change Indicators in the United States, outlines recent climate impacts occurring in real time. Some of the key findings include:

- Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are increasing. Between 1990 and 2008, there has been about a 14 percent increase in emissions in the United States.

- Average temperatures are rising. Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the continental United States have occurred since 1990.

- Tropical cyclone intensity has increased in recent decades. Six of the 10 most active hurricane seasons have occurred since the mid-1990s.

- Sea levels are rising. From 1993 to 2008, sea level rose twice as fast as the long-term trend.

- Glaciers are melting. Loss of glacier volume appears to have accelerated over the last decade.

- The frequency of heat waves has risen steadily since the 1960s. The percentage of the U.S. population impacted by heat waves has also increased.

So, we've identified the problem and the cause. Now it's time to start talking about the remedies. Stay tuned.

UK Nuclear Energy Policy

I recently came across this Financial Times article about UK nuclear energy policy. It's a bit dated but thought you might want to take a read.

Essentially it talks about the difference in views between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. Yet despite these differences, there remains a commitment to nuclear energy, which emits zero greenhouse gases (GHGs). Furthermore, the private sector appears relatively unfazed about the need for 100% private sector funding so long as they have the regulatory certainty needed to make long term plans about nuclear new build.

If you really want to get into the weeds on UK nuclear energy policy take a look at their 2008 Nuclear White Paper and, more recently, the UK's draft National Nuclear Policy Statement.

National Academy of Sciences reports

NAS released three reports yesterday emphasizing why the US should reduce emissions and develop a plan to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change.

I recommend reading this excellent article in Science Daily outlining the key messages of the reports.

The case for action on climate change has never been stronger. We need a comprehensive, aggressive, and pragmatic effort to begin reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions now. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

Midway in the Beltway

We've had the Rumble in the Jungle. We've had the Thrilla' in Manila. Now we've got the Midway in the Beltway.

Things seemed to be simmering down on Monday after Sen. Graham's (R-SC) announcement that he would be pulling his support for a comprehensive climate change and energy bill.

But what a difference another day makes. While Sens. Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) remain optimistic, Graham has dug in his heels and doesn't appear willing to move unless immigration is dropped entirely from the legislative calendar.

Who knows how this is all going to play out but take a look at this great Politico article to give you a sense of what Graham's dealing with.

Putting a price on what now?

This is an excellent article on what it means to put a price on carbon. I don't necessarily agree with everything Mr. Ackerman says but it's a great intro piece for the casual reader. But be warned, he gets into the weeds pretty quickly.

The critical takeaway is this - you need a strong price on carbon in order to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and create a market for new, clean energy sources.

Climate legislation on the ropes or down for the count?

Yesterday's announcement from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) can only be described as a savage blow to the solar plexus. Everyone was all set for a big press conference unveiling the legislation tomorrow but now nothing, at least for the time being.

Is this the end of climate legislation in 2010? Too early to tell of course but the calendar is getting busy - financial reform, immigration (zero legislative text in either the House or the Senate), and a Supreme Court nomination. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have said they will continue to pursue the introduction and passage of a bill with or without Sen. Graham. My guess is they would be happier to have him on board.

Graham had, over the past several months, pushed hard for a comprehensive bill. Many in Washington thought he could bring a handful of other Republicans into the fold because of his pro-nuclear, pro-domestic oil and gas production, and pro-business point of view. To date, there's been no physical manifestation of that theory but a number of other Republican names have been included in the mix (e.g., Gregg (NH), Voinovich (OH), Corker (TN)). Without Graham, the likelihood of these Republicans jumping into the fray is slim to none.

So what now? It appears Kerry is hopeful that Graham will reconsider once the heat of the immigration announcement simmers down. I'm not in a position to judge whether that will happen but things are definitely looking dicey right now. Especially when you consider that Graham not only had the potential to bring Republicans on board but he also provided political cover for moderate Democrats wavering in their support of a comprehensive bill.

I'm not ready to label this latest development as apocalyptic. That said, Graham came close to walking the plank on a climate and energy bill and is obviously frustrated by the shift in policy priorities. If I were a betting man, I'd say the odds of him coming back to the tri-partisan fold are 5-1. But I'm not so don't take me up on it. Better to spend your time trying to figure out how we get climate legislation off the mat.

Fact or Fiction Friday

Welcome back to the latest installment of Fact or Fiction Friday. Get your face paint on, pull out your favorite team jersey, and let's get stuck in. But before we do, as always, check out this important disclaimer.

Alright, here we go. Fact or fiction: Global warming stopped in 1998. This is one of my favorites. It's almost as good as the argument that the world is cooling.

And the answer is . . . FICTION! At the time 1998 was the record holder for hottest year, due in large part to the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing 1998 as your starting point on which to compare all the following years is a perfect example of cherry picking the data to suit your argument. But once you take a look at the trend lines you can see, despite the 1998 anomaly, global temperatures have been on the rise.

Head over to Grist's How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic or SkepticalScience to learn more about this issue, and other arguments often rolled out to refute the existence of global warming and resulting changes in climate.

Chu, China, and the need for progress

Great article from Wired earlier this week on Energy Secretary Steven Chu's perspective on US-China climate change policy. A bit long but well worth the read. And you may want to have a look at The Climate Desk, which is where I came across the article. I'm all about the one stop shop for finding information.

Here are some of the key messages from the article if you're short on time:
- China is spending $100 billion (that's with a "b") on clean energy every year
- The US should view China as a partner in this arena as opposed to an adversary
- The size of China's market could provide US companies an opportunity to test their clean tech products at scale, especially in the building sector

In keeping with the one stop shop theme, I highly recommend checking out the ChinaFAQs website to learn more about what China is doing on climate change and energy policy. Some of the content can be pretty techy but it's broken down into manageable bites for the casual reader. For those one of you who are avid readers of the GreenMachine, you'll remember that my very first post was on ChinaFAQs. Ahh, the memories. I'm getting misty eyed.

Fact or Fiction Tuesday!

Folks, I know you've missed me. Especially Steve. Apologies for the big gap between this and my last post. Last week was brutal and this week I'm on vacation, but feeling the insatiable desire to blog out like it's 1999.

Let's get back in the swing of things with a Fact or Fiction Friday, even though it's Tuesday. Are you ready? Take a deep breath and read this important disclaimer before you enter the abyss.

Fact or fiction: climate models are unreliable. Shall we rock out to the Jeopardy theme song while you're pondering this one? Wow, my kingdom for a synthesizer.

But I digress. The answer is . . . FICTION! "While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."

There are really three critical issues highlighted in SkepticalScience on this point. The first is fairly straightforward and that is, no one has created a model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without factoring in CO2 warming. The second is the distinction between weather and climate. I'll let SkepticalScience do all the talking on this one.

A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now". This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. In weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time.

The last point is one I hope will stick with you if nothing else does. It deals with uncertainty. Do we know enough to act? Yes, we do. We will never have 100% certainty but no one in their right mind waits to act until they do. Many of the impacts highlighted in the 2007 report conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have a 95% chance of happening. Do we really need 96%, 99%, or 100% to take action? If 95 doctors said you were sick, would you believe the 5 who said you weren't?

As always, please check out SkepticalScience to learn more about this and other arguments regularly touted by those who reject the science of climate change.

Communicating risk and uncertainty

Excellent op-ed in today's Guardian. Key quote comes at the end:

. . . despite the climate scientists' best efforts at scepticism, it simply has not been possible to rule out the risk of the sort of climate changes discussed above.

Handling uncertainty is key to the scientific method, but, conversely, the existence of uncertainty is not itself cause for inaction.

This is a critical point. There is no way we can have 100% certainty about what the world will look like in 2050. But there is an enormous body of evidence, reinforced by a recent Met Office study, that suggests the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is more urgent than ever. By the time we have 100% certainty, it'll likely be too late.

Another study debunks "global cooling"

Here is a great, if slightly long/technical, article discussing a draft study debunking the theory of "global cooling". You avid GreenMachine readers will have seen my "Fact or Fiction Friday" post two days ago on the subject.

Like I've said before, having a reasonable debate about the science is one thing. But peddling the same tired arguments day in and day out is only delaying the implementation of policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and avoid dangerous climate change. Hopefully this latest study will put the kibosh on these misguided tactics.

Fact or Fiction Friday

Welcome back to the regularly scheduled Fact or Fiction Friday. This week's installment is what I like to refer to as the "doozy whopper" of all arguments that reject the science underpinning climate change.

Before we get started, please take a look at the standard disclaimer. Lastly, in the spirit of March Madness, let's have a good, clean game and no eye gouging.

Fact or Fiction: Global warming has stopped and cooling is beginning.

And the answer is . . . FICTION. "Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening." For those of you who got this one right, pat yourselves on the back, maybe do a chest bump with a friend or colleague, and sing "One Shining Moment" as loud as you can.

For those of you who got this wrong, it's alright, that's why Fact or Fiction Friday is here. Check out SkepticalScience to learn more about the fallacy of "global cooling" and other arguments climate science skeptics turn to regularly.

Also, take a look at a couple of great articles from this week's Economist, one short and one pretty long. I don't agree with every line, but both reflect fairly well reasoned views on climate science, the latest dust ups, and why action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is necessary.

More on climate change and national security

Here is a great blog post by Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti that follows on his recent interview with the National Journal.

Morisetti's post clearly frames the challenges ahead and the steps required to address the problem. Expect more from him in the coming months.

Why the Science Matters

There's been an enormous amount of chatter recently about climate change science. It started last year when computer hackers stole thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and has continued in light of recent revelations that a small number of projections in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were inaccurate or not properly peer reviewed.

But neither event should take away from the fact that, despite all of the media coverage, and all of the sceptical arguments used in the aftermath of the UEA and IPCC developments, the overwhelming fundamentals have not changed - that climate change is happening and “man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause”.

We are changing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. This significant shift is leading to changes taking place right now (e.g., Arctic sea ice melt, Greenland glacial melt, and increased ocean acidity). These are not potential impacts 20, 50, or 100 years from now, but changes happening in real time.

The latest review published by the Met Office Hadley Centre and other UK and international climate experts lends further support to these assertions. It shows the evidence for man-made climate change is even stronger now than when the IPCC carried out its last assessment in 2007.

So, do we just stand idly by and wait to see what happens? Or do we take concrete, pragmatic steps to fix the problem? If you haven't guessed by now, I say we choose the latter. Over the next few weeks, GreenMachine2050 will focus on what specific steps can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), improve energy security, and create new low carbon economic future.

I know. It's going to be awesome. So stay tuned.

Adaptation, the Other Climate Change Policy

The Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force has published its progress report today. It's fairly short and has some pretty strong lines. It opens with "[t]he impacts of climate change already are being felt across the United States and the entire world."

The Task Force is made up of five workgroups - science, agency process, water resource management, insurance, and international assistance. The focus is primarily on the need for a cross-government, cross-society approach in adapting to climate impacts.

The goals of the interagency work include:
- forming recommendations toward a national adaptation strategy
- integrating climate change resilience and adaptive capacity into Federal government operations
- broadening the understanding of vulnerability to climate impacts

The Progress Report highlights the work already being done within a number of agencies. However, there are still significant gaps. The final report, due in October 2010, is expected to address these challenges in much greater detail.

Climate Change and National Security

Here is an interesting interview with Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, the UK's Special Envoy on Energy and Climate Security, by the National Journal. The UK is exploring the links between climate change and national security. Here's a quote from the interview:

[T]his is an issue that is not going to go away. It's an issue that we need to address, we need to understand more about. We need to develop the capability to monitor and see how this is happening. And we need to take action. And action is a mixture of adaptation to ensure we have the military capabilities in order to deliver the national security, and it is about mitigation and playing our part in the armed forces to reduce the future threat.

The basic premise is the natural link between a shifting climate and the resulting stresses on nations/regions already struggling to cope with existing pressures. Morisetti referenced this in his interview as well.

I would fully support the view that was expressed in the CNA think tank... report in 2007: that it is unlikely that climate change on its is going to start a conflict, but it could be the tipping point or the catalyst of conflict, because you're just heaping more stress on top of people who are already suffering from stress.

The UK isn't alone in its thinking. In addition to CNA, other groups including the Center for New American Security and the Woodrow Wilson Center have done a great deal of work on this front. I highly recommend checking out their reports and analysis.

Also take a look at what the US Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) says about climate change and the National Intelligence Assessment (NIA) which is focused entirely on climate change. The original NIA is classified but you can access an unclassified version here.

Climate Science Fact or Fiction . . . Thursday?

I'm feeling a little under the weather so not sure I'm going to be able to do the usual Fact or Fiction Friday post. So lucky you, I've decided to move it up a day. Don't get too excited, it'll go back to it's regularly scheduled Friday once I kick this cold.

As ever, please review my disclaimer before proceeding.

This is a great time of year for competition given the proximity of March Madness. Let's get stuck in.

Fact or Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on global warming.

Drum roll please . . . . Fiction! Truth is, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Good game, good game.

To find out more, you can go to SkepticalScience and learn all about what's fact and what's fiction.

In case you missed it . . .

. . . there is still a debate on climate and energy legislation going on in the Senate. I know it's hard to make it passed all the other headlines but the New York times has this to offer.

Climate Science Fact or Fiction Friday

Welcome to the second installment of Fact or Fiction Friday. This is an opportunity to set the record straight on some of the regular arguments used by sceptics. See my first Fact or Fiction post for the usual disclaimer.

Get your game faces on because it's about to get ugly.

Fact or Fiction: Earth's climate has changed long before we were pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.

Wait for it. Wait for it. Fact but if the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect and therefore capturing more heat in the atmosphere.

To find out more, you can go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm.

Also wanted to draw your attention to this latest study on the links between human activity and climate change.

Stay tuned for next week's installment of Fact or Fiction Friday. I also hope to put out a piece that explains the science of climate change in greater detail beforehand. You can't wait, can you?

New Report from the Center for American Progress

The Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report yesterday titled Out of the Running. Key message - the US needs to start making long-term investments in clean energy development or risk being shut out of a $2.3 trillion industry. CAP compares the US to what's happening in Germany, Spain, and China. The report finds that these countries are early winners and the US, lacking strong domestic clean energy policies, may be left behind.

For those who are interested, check out this December New Yorker article about China. It supports the CAP report's main message that the US needs to go all in on clean energy R&D, or end up losing the new Great Game.

I have a need . . . a need for speed

In May 1986, arguably one of the greatest movies of all time arrived in theaters across the US. It was a movie that taught generations of young Americans about courage, overcoming adversity, and how to execute a proper flyby in spite of a full pattern. It introduced us to great American heroes like Maverick, Goose, Iceman, and Slider.

But Top Gun was more than just a testosterone filled joyride. It was trying to fix America's gaze on a looming threat on the horizon. What was that threat? The USSR? A rogue state in the Middle East? Or was Maverick trying to warn us about something else?

I think he was, because that's just how he rolled. I argue here that Top Gun, and it's main character Maverick, were trying to warn us about the dangers of global climate change. I've just blown your mind haven't I? I'll pause here to let this sink in.

Think about it. The theme song alone, "Highway to the Danger Zone" by Kenny "Kellogg" Loggins, alludes to the dangers of runaway greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). But the movie delves deeper into the challenges we face.

In the opening scene Maverick goes into a high speed inverted dive with a MiG which, for those of you who are connoisseurs of the movie will recall, Iceman suggests is impossible. He of course represents the vested interests in our economy who hold on to the status quo with every last ounce of strength and suggest a transition to a low carbon energy future is a fantasy. The name itself, "Iceman", identifies a relic of the past.

Maverick challenges that status quo, but not without some loss. Goose's untimely death, which brings a tear to my eye every time I watch the movie, shows us that leaving behind what we know and cherish can be hugely difficult and painful. This reflects the "creative destruction" that will come with a shift to a new energy future. Mav questions himself and his motives after Goose dies. He almost gives up and yet, deep down, he knows that would just be un-American. So what does he do? He answers the call and saves Iceman.

Why would he save a relic? Because Mav knows, in all his mighty wisdom, that a transition to a new energy age doesn't happen overnight. He knows that 20th Century technology will still be needed to make a smooth shift into what needs to become the status quo of the 21st Century - increased use of renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficient products.

After Maverick has saved the day, we witness him throwing Goose's dog tags off the carrier which solidifies his break with the past. Something we all need to do if we hope to make a rapid transition to a low carbon 21st Century economy.

Fact or Fiction?

Welcome to the first installment of "Fact or Fiction" on GreenMachine2050. This is an opportunity to test your knowledge about some of the arguments used by sceptics of the science of climate change. A quick disclaimer - I am not, nor ever have been, a scientist. I only play one on TV.

Alright, let's get to the big game. This is exciting, isn't it?

Fact or fiction, is the sun causing global warming?

And the answer is . . . fiction. In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

For those of you who'd like to geek out a bit more you can spend the rest of your day cruising this website.

Thanks for playing and look forward to seeing you again next week.

Revkin's latest

Great article by Andrew Revkin - http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/. A must read for those wanting to have a "productive discourse" on climate change.

Where there's a Will, there's a way . . .

. . . to address climate change policy in a pragmatic and serious way. George Will's interesting op-ed piece in Sunday's Washington Post highlighted the challenges we face in doing so and reflects sentiments that need to be addressed in order to ensure the US adopts a comprehensive energy and climate policy.

Mr. Will pointed to a number of recent developments that suggest the science of climate change is not settled. But while he focused on stolen emails that independent reviews by the Associated Press and Guardian found only to reveal human transgressions, not scientific, and the recent gaffes by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Mr. Will does not mention that the Arctic ice sheets are melting at a much faster rate than anyone anticipated, as are ice shelves in the Antarctic, and glaciers in Greenland. All of which are due to rising global temperatures.

He also does not mention that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) found that the first decade of the 21st Century was the hottest on record. The second hottest? The last decade of the 20th Century. Another critical development Mr. Will left out of his piece is the rapid acidification of the world's oceans. None of these are projected impacts in some far flung year, but rather observed changes happening in real time which can be directly attributable to rising temperatures and significant increases in global carbon emissions.

Mr. Will is right, the science is not settled. We're not 100% certain what the world will look like in 2050. But we are certain that human activity is having a negative impact on the world's environment. We are experiencing climate change now, and it's not necessarily in the form of snow storms or hurricanes. The real writing on the wall is in Alaska, Canada, Siberia, Greenland, the Arctic, the Antarctic, and our oceans. To only focus on one element of the conversation, without focusing on the others, is disingenuous. And this, if I'm interpreting his piece correctly, is exactly what he's accusing supporters of climate and energy legislation of being.

Having a conversation about climate change science is far from a bad thing. But let's not ignore what's happening in the world. We have to avoid getting bogged down in irrelevant debates - a snow storm for some is imported snow for others. At the same time, fear mongering has no place in this conversation and the science, when presented, needs to as sound and rigorous as humanly possible.

Chicken and egg

Highly recommend this website - http://www.chinafaqs.org/. Lots of good information about what China is doing to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the challenges it faces.