I haven't posted since late last year so here's quick recap of 2010: economy in the doldrums; tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record; was also the wettest year on record (which is awkward on a number of levels); the last decade was the hottest on record (with the previous two decades coming in second and third respectively). All and all, not the kind of streak you want to be on.
So what's a possible solution that meets the trifecta of economic recovery, energy security, and climate stability? There's no easy, straightforward answer but a critical element, and one that needs to be ramped up quickly, is the need to embrace a clean energy future. In doing so, you have the opportunity to design new technologies, enable new markets, and most importantly, create new jobs. And it all comes with the additional benefits of a cleaner environment and more secure sources of energy.
Total aside, anyone who can find a poetry blog from 2001 called "Someplace Nice" gets a cookie.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 6, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
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.
Friday, October 29, 2010
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.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
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."
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."
Thursday, September 23, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)