Worldchanging News and Views

Monkey See, Monkey Do?

WorldChanging Team — 2009-12-16T12:05:32-08:00

by Roger Valdez

Evolutionary science suggests climate change, energy savings spurred human evolution.

Last weekend I spent some time at home recovering from some oral surgery. It was a welcome respite that allowed me to catch up on some of my favorite television shows, including PBS’ Nova. I downloaded the first of a series called “Becoming Human: Unearthing Our Earliest Ancestors.” The series tries to answer one of the most fascinating questions of evolutionary science: How did apes evolve into human beings and why did Homo sapiens emerge, after millions of years of evolution, as the only human species on planet earth? I was surprised to find that the answer contemporary science has found is connected to two issues we’ve been working on here at Sightline. According to one theory gaining ground, the answer about human evolution has to do with climate change and energy efficiency.

Here is a video preview of the series now airing on PBS (it isn’t nearly as good as this classic clip from 2001: A Space Odyssey, which offers an alternative explanation of human evolution).

No, primitive humans didn’t emerge because they built windmills and held climate conferences. What proved crucial to changing the pattern of human evolution, according to the theory, was a period of extreme shifts in climate which favored species that were smarter and able to adapt more quickly to their environment. The proponent of this theory, Richard Potts director of the Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program, argues that environmental instability and change was the key ingredient that propelled evolutionary change.

The [Variability Selection] hypothesis differs from prior views of hominid evolution . . . According to the VS hypothesis, wide fluctuations over time created a growing disparity in adaptive conditions . . . Key hominid adaptations, in fact, emerged during times of heightened variability. Early bipedality, encephalized brains, and complex human sociality appear to signify a sequence of VS adaptations - i.e., a ratcheting up of versatility and responsiveness to novel environments experienced over the past 6 million years.

Sounds complicated but put simply, when the going got tough, the tough (and smart) got going. As water supplies grew and then shrank creating difficulty for early pre-human and human species, those with the ability to walk to other sources of food and water survived, while other species—more like modern day monkeys—died out. The Nova series suggests that brain development reached a plateau among pre-human and early human species at some point, but then started to take big leaps, resulting in larger more complex brains. Potts argues that those changes were spurred by huge changes in climate which favored species that were smart and agile enough to stay ahead of starvation.

There’s an energy efficiency link too, but it’s not obvious. Another scientist suggests that part of the secret of the success of our earlier ancestors was, obviously, their ability to walk. But why would that make such a big difference? Couldn’t a chimp-like ancestor have just as easily swung from tree to tree or ambled on four legs from a dried up lake to a new water source?

It all comes down to the efficient use of energy. As my colleague Clark Williams Derry has pointed out in his post on SUVs and Snickers Bars and one on bikes and energy, our concepts of energy are woefully out of sync with how energy consumption actually works. Things we assume take lots of energy often don’t, while other things we assume are not energy intensive actually are. Walking upright turns out to be a huge leap forward in the efficient use of energy.

Daniel E. Lieberman, a Harvard anthropologist featured on the Nova program has studied the relative energy used for human and chimp walking. There is no contest: human walking is far more energy efficient that the usual four legged amble of our chimp cousins. When trying to move across many miles of African savanna to a new food source, conserving energy is crucial. Use too much of it and you’ll starve to death, but use your calories efficiently and you’ll make it to the next pile of snickers bars.

In the first installment of the series, Lieberman says that the chimp walk is “poorly designed to withstand the forces of gravity. It has to expend a lot of muscular effort to keep itself from collapsing into a little pile of chimpness, or whatever, with each step.” But walking on two legs is faster and more efficient. Another study by Lieberman and University of Utah biologist Dennis Bramble suggests that the ability to run put even more distance between humans and our monkey cousins.

The series is provocative and fun to watch. But it also relates to issues that the human race faces today. It isn’t a stretch to wonder weather we’ve learned anything from previous effects of climate change, however ancient. Will we use our smarts to make changes in our behavior that reduce climate change? Will we work toward more efficient use of energy? Or will we be a victim of evolution like some of our less fortunate relatives? It is hard to exaggerate the long term importance of policy changes now being considered by governments all over the world. Here in North America, passing cap and trade, creating real energy efficiencies, and tapping into renewable sources of energy. This time our fate is largely in our own hands.

This piece originally appeared on Sightline Daily.

(Posted in News and Views at 12:05 PM)

Overwhelming US Public Support For Global Warming Action

Joe Romm — 2009-12-16T11:19:56-08:00

by Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress

Poll Confirms Americans Believe Economy, Jobs Helped By Pollution Reduction

Two new polls issued today confirm that an overwhelming portion of Americans want domestic action and an international agreement to reduce global warming pollution. More than half the respondents want to do a great deal to reduce the threat of global warming, while only one-quarter oppose action.

Associated Press/Stanford Univ. poll; conducted 11/17-29 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media; surveyed 1,005 adults; margin of error +/- 3.1% (release, 12/15).
How Much Do You Think The U.S. Should Do About Global Warming

A great deal/quite a bit 52%

Some 23

A little/nothing 25

The AP poll also found that by nearly 2-1, respondents felt that reducing global warming pollution would create rather than cost jobs. A near majority felt that steps to cut global warming pollution would help the economy, while slightly more than one-quarter thought that it would hurt the economy – about the same proportion that oppose action.

Do You Think That The U.S. Doing Things To Reduce Global Warming In The Future Would Cause There To Be More/Fewer Jobs For People Around The Country?
More jobs 40%

Fewer jobs 23

Would not affect jobs 33

Do You Think That The U.S. Doing Things To Reduce Global Warming In The Future Would Hurt/Help The U.S. Economy?

Help U.S. economy 46%

Hurt U.S. economy 27

Would not affect economy 24

The poll asked a number of questions about potential solutions. It found that the public opposed reducing global warming pollution by increasing taxes on electricity, energy or gasoline so that people use less. There was an even split between support and opposition to building new nuclear power plants.

Nearly 90% of the respondents supported giving “companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power.” Respondents supported tax incentives to produce electricity from coal fired power plants that capture and store carbon pollution. And by 58% to 37%, respondents supported a “cap and trade” system to reduce pollution (when accurately explained). This support grew to 2-1 when respondents learned that “a similar system has been effective in reducing emissions that cause acid rain.”

Significantly, nearly two-thirds of the respondents in the AP believe that inaction on global warming “will hurt future generations a great deal/a lot.” Less than one quarter believe that inaction will have little or no impact.

If Nothing Is Done To Reduce Global Warming In The Future, How Much Do You Think It Will Hurt Future Generations?
A great deal/a lot 63%

A moderate amount 13

A little/not at all 23

A poll released today by USA Today/Gallup found clear majority support for the United States to sign a binding agreement to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution.

Conducted 12/11-13; surveyed 1,025 adults; margin of error +/- 3.1%. Subsample of 898 RVs; margin of error +/- 3.3% (release, 12/14).
Do you Favor/Oppose The U.S. Signing A Binding Global Treaty At The Copenhagen Meeting That Would Require The U.S. To Significantly Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Favor 55%

Oppose 38

Both of these polls found support for action to stem global warming via pollution cuts despite the worst economy in nearly thirty years. And the polls occurred during the feeding frenzy over the stolen emails from the British climate research center that led the mainstream media to give disproportionate air time and weight to climate deniers who represent a tiny minority of scientists. This coverage is reflected in the AP poll finding that two of three respondents believe there is a “disagreement among scientists” about global warming. Even with this uncertainty, Americans still favor action to cut global warming pollution, and it will benefit the economy and create jobs.

This piece originally appeared on Climate Progress.

(Posted in News and Views at 11:19 AM)

Takin' Care of Business, Copenhagen Style

Joe Romm — 2009-12-10T11:48:24-08:00

by Bracken Hendricks

A dispatch from the Denmark conference

If you listened to my friends over at Fox news and the Heritage Foundation, you might be forgiven for thinking that the polyglot conference going on this week in Denmark was a conspiracy of commie sympathizers and faceless bureaucrats hell bent on taking down the global economy – or at least that part of it located in the continental USA. Well, I’m sorry to report that the view from street level is a little bit different.

Here in no particular order are just a few of the conversations that I had the privilege of witnessing today in some of the quieter corners of the cavernous Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark where COP 15 is unfolding in real time. These economic prognostications are not my own, but they came from some of the most reliable people on the planet for navigating a path to a low carbon economy.

A senior executive from a global automobile manufacturer (BMW) opined about the need to include automobile emissions when regulating carbon emission. He wanted this so his company could have a clear shot at navigating the path from oil dependence to a future of cruising in electric cars. Incidentally, on this point, the European conceded that his American cousins had gotten it right by proposing to fold transportation fuels into an economy wide cap. Further, he saw fuel economy standards as well as the bold step taken by California and the US EPA to count the carbon coming out of tail pipes equally with power plants, as being useful tools for keeping the beleaguered auto industry on a path of innovation.

Just on the other side of that same room, a senior executive from northern Europe’s largest utility flippantly mentioned that his firm (Vattenfall AB) was working from a business plan that had them producing 100% zero-carbon energy by 2050. Was he worried he wouldn’t be able to keep the lights on for the 4.7 million retail customers he supplies in Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the UK? Not a chance. The combination of an aggressive push on renewable energy – particularly wind – and a long term play on advanced carbon capture for coal plants has helped him sleep well at night. On regulating carbon emissions though, he did concede that European utilities were nervous at first, but in the end he shrugged, you get used to it and you get on with business – only with more confidence in your product.

At a later point in the day, a member of the leadership team from the largest utility company in the USA (American Electric Power), mentioned almost as a badge of honor that his Ohio based power provider – with fully 40 thousand Mega Watts of mostly coal based electric power under management – supported the bipartisan Waxman-Markey climate and clean energy bill in the US House of Representatives. This was an aside however, in a round table discussion focused chiefly on how the United States could take a page from the energy sector in other nations, and pull ahead in the global race for renewable energy — a race that has produced 30 to 50% growth rates in the solar market, and over 28% growth for heavy manufacturing in the wind industry, as noted by the CEO’s of some of these very same global competitors. Not bad for an economic downturn!

So it is with some trepidation that I must disappoint those nay-sayers who assert that American ingenuity isn’t quite up to the challenge of beating back global warming with a mix of strategic investment and old-fashioned roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-to-work American optimism. Copenhagen is turning out to be the temporary capital of market-correcting capitalists, dynamic new economy entrepreneurs, and innovation seeking industrialists, but so far there’s not a commie in sight. And, incidentally all the bureaucrats I met have faces. But then again, there’s always tomorrow – by then who knows how big the renewable energy industry will have gotten.

This piece originally appeared on Climate Progress.

Image Credit: Greenpeace Finland via Flickr, Creative Commons License

(Posted in News and Views at 11:48 AM)

Climate Negotiators Push For "Solution" Rather Than Treaty

Ben Block — 2009-12-09T10:41:18-08:00

Connie Hedegaard, host of the ongoing United Nations-sponsored climate negotiations, opened the two-week summit yesterday in Denmark's capital with a passionate call for an international commitment to combat climate change.

"This is the time to deliver," said Hedegaard, the Danish minister of climate and energy. "his is the place to commit.... Let's get it done!"

Problem is, Hedegaard did not clarify what "it" is.

A Danish proposal, released to the British newspaper The Guardian, revealed that the United States, United Kingdom, and Denmark had formed a negotiation text on their own that would replace the Kyoto Protocol.

The "political agreement" rocked the negotiations yesterday and has led major parties such as China and the Alliance of Small Island States to begin crafting their own
negotiation texts as well, sources said.

The Copenhagen summit was previously billed as the deadline of a two-year process, initiated at a similar UN summit in Bali, Indonesia, to forge a legally binding international treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Negotiators agreed that Copenhagen would host a historic agreement. But disagreement among international negotiators, national politicians, and consumers worldwide pushed talk of a binding treaty off of the Copenhagen agenda.

The Danish proposal has now led to even greater uncertainty about how the Copenhagen summit will end.

The confusion was clear at the opening ceremony. Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen mentioned "a strong common approach," "effective global solutions," and an agreement "founded on legal principles."

The word "treaty" was never mentioned. Rasmussen instead reiterated his proposal for a "very strong politically binding agreement," first discussed last month. Tricky issues related to finance, technology transfer, deforestation, and accountability should be addressed in Copenhagen, he said. If so, leaders could be ready to sign a treaty in December 2010 at the UN summit in Mexico City.

Leaders of major industrialized nations, such as the United States and European Union, have since supported a "political agreement."

"What we need to do now is to bring these leaders together next week and push them to make strong concrete commitments, which we can, in a system of transparency,
follow all the way until we have a legally binding instrument," Rasmussen said at a side event on Monday. "I know this will be disappointing for some. But on the other hand, this approach, in my opinion, is a very realistic and ambitious approach.... Don't underestimate that naming and blaming is a very strong sanction tool."

Developing countries, especially those currently facing the harsh realities of climate change - water scarcity, sea-level rise, reduced crop yields - have not responded well to the political proposal. Until a legally binding treaty is adopted, the responsibility, and required funding, to deal with climate changes in their regions will rest on developing-world
governments, said Saadeldin Ibrahim Mohammed Izzeldin, a Sudanese delegate who speaks for the Group of 77 developing-country negotiation bloc.

News of a "political agreement" crafted without developing-country consultation has led to further frustration among negotiators. The Group of 77 was notified of the
Danish-U.S.-U.K. proposal this past weekend, even though the draft, as published on The Guardian's Web site yesterday, was several weeks old, according to members of the Climate Action Network, an international coalition of environmental groups that learned about the sideline negotiations today.

"After spending millions of air miles negotiating a text, Copenhagen setting the entire [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] process aside and bringing in a new
text is totally unacceptable to most developing countries," said Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow with the International
Institute for Environment and Development.

Bruno Tseliso Sekoli, lead spokesman for the bloc of Least Developed Countries, said that he became aware of a separate negotiation process during the UNFCCC meeting in Bangkok, Thailand in October. Although Sekoli was not shown the Danish proposal, he defended the Danish hosts.

"They did try to make an effort," said Sekoli, climate change coordinator and director of Lesotho Meteorological Services in Maseru, capital of the sub-Saharan African
nation, in an interview. "We still insist on more serious consultation on the issue
of controlling greenhouse gas emissions through a Kyoto Protocol mechanism."

U.S. delegates said that the Danish government, as host to the negotiations, is expected to propose various agreement options. The leaked text was no more than an "exercise."

Prime Minister Rasmussen is supposedly no longer promoting the Danish-U.S.-U.K. plan.

African negotiators demonstrated their frustration at the inadequate progress of negotiations today by storming through the conference center's main floor and shouting, "1 degree is enough; 2 degrees is suicide."

"So far this negotiation is coming out with an outcome that will not be able to protect the safety of Africa," said Mohamed Adow, a program officer with Christian Aid in
Kenya. "I'm talking about climate colonialism."

A U.S. senator, Jim Webb (D-VA), has also expressed concern about the negotiation progress. A "political agreement" would be as unacceptable as a treaty, he wrote in a
letter to U.S. President Barack Obama.

"As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country," said Webb, a hold-out in the Senate debate on a climate bill.

The meaning of "political agreement" had no definition before today. Yet some environmental campaigners began to question whether the political proposal was merely a way to ensure that the Copenhagen summit appears historic regardless of its
outcome.

"All leaders are under more pressure to sell something back at home that's not too bad," said Antonio Hill, Oxfam International's senior climate advisor, yesterday. "This leads to the possibility of tricks and loopholes."

Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo appealed on Monday directly to Rasmussen that he not allow other heads of state to settle for the "lowest common denominator."

"Let's ensure that we deliver a fair and ambitious and binding treaty," Naidoo said. "If we fail to do that, then Copenhagen will be remembered as ‘Flopenhagen' when we want it to be remembered as ‘Hopenhagen.'"

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chair Rajendra Pachauri said during the opening ceremony that global emissions must peak no later than 2015 in order to limit global temperature increase to between 2 and 2.4 degrees Celsius.

"And some may even question the goal of 2 degrees Celsius as a ceiling because this would lead to sea-level rise on account of thermal expansion alone of 0.4 to 1.4
meters," he said. "This increase, added to the effect of melting of snow and ice across the globe, could submerge several small island states and Bangladesh."

Mohammed Axam Maumoon, 15, lives on North Malé Atoll, one of several islands in the Maldives that may disappear into a rising sea. His parents have told him stories about beaches that Mohammed now describes as lagoons. Maldives President
Mohamed Nasheed is searching for foreign land where his residents could relocate in the event of a tragic flood.

"We are now in the era of climate injustice," said Mohammed, whom the Maldives government chose to represent the island state at the Children's Climate Forum organized by UNICEF in Copenhagen. "Those with more than enough are damaging our world blindly in the common cause of development."

Marstella Jack, a private attorney from the Federation States of Micronesia, also emphasized the climate severity faced by her community.

"When I look at the dialogues here and the realities we face now at home - it's so detached," said Jack at a CAN event. "We want to live for the next 100 years at
least. But it's not looking like our islands will live to see the next 100 years."

This piece originally appeared on Worldwatch Institute.

Image Credit: Ben Block

(Posted in Politics at 10:41 AM)

Climate News Roundup

Clark Williams-Derry — 2009-12-08T11:42:42-08:00

It's a big day for climate news:

International climate talks are now underway in Copenhagen. Expectations are mixed: in the New York Times, Paul Krugman is uncharacteristically optimistic that the talks will result in real progress, despite the widespread media narrative that it's mostly just hot air. As for me, I'm expecting both: plenty of hot air, and a bit if progress if we're lucky. If you're into the funny, point your browser at Grist's Copenhagen coverage.

Just for the record, I'm a bit annoyed by this predictable critique of all of the fuel-guzzling limos crowding the Copenhagen streets during the talks. Sure, the optics of limos at a climate conference are bad. But focusing on appearances, and more generally on personal choices, is exactly the wrong way to think about climate change. If all the celebrities, dignitaries, and heads of state had decided to bike the streets of Copenhagen for the next two weeks, the net effect on global emission would be essentially zippo. The real measure of success is the substance of the talks, not the carbon footprint of the attendees.

Strengthening the US position going into the talks, the EPA has just officially released its "endangerment finding" for climate-warming emissions -- a determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and the environment.

Locally, there are a few tidbits as well. The all-electric Nissan Leaf will be touring the Seattle area this week. (Also see this LA Times article on the prospects for plug-in hybrids.) And the Oregonian explores one of my own pet obsessions: the massive carbon storage potential of federal forests in the Pacific Northwest.

What'd I miss?

This piece originally appeared on Sightline Daily.

(Posted in News and Views at 11:42 AM)

Draft Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement - The 'Danish Text'

WorldChanging Team — 2009-12-08T11:32:25-08:00

A draft Copenhagen climate agreement prepared by the hosts Denmark that was leaked to the Guardian
Read the news story here
Datablog: the Danish text as a wordle

This piece originally appeared in The Guardian.

(Posted in News and Views at 11:32 AM)

With Copenhagen Pact Stalled, Leaders Look for Climate Treaty in 2010

Yale Environment 360 — 2009-11-18T11:44:47-08:00

With the announcement by President Obama and other world leaders this weekend that no binding climate agreement will be reached in Copenhagen next month, numerous officials expressed hopes that a treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions could be signed by mid- to late-2010. Meeting in Singapore, Obama and other leaders agreed that lack of accord on setting precise emissions reductions targets would prevent the signing of a binding climate treaty in Copenhagen. But in a process that Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen labeled as “one agreement, two steps,” climate negotiators are hopeful that the 192 nations meeting in Copenhagen will sign a non-binding political agreement calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and for aid to developing nations to help them adapt to a warming world. Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, said he hoped a final agreement could then be reached by mid-2010 at a meeting in Bonn. The host of the Copenhagen meeting, Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard, said officials should set a clear deadline for signing a climate treaty, possibly in time for a December 2010 meeting scheduled for Mexico City. Some environmentalists criticized Obama for the treaty delay, but others said he could not commit to firm greenhouse gas reductions until Congress acts on a pending climate change bill.

This piece originally appeared on Yale Environment 360.

Photo Credit: net_efekt via Flickr, Creative Commons License.

(Posted in Politics at 11:44 AM)

Tragedy of the Commons, R.I.P.

Jay Walljasper — 2009-10-16T10:58:59-08:00

Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize for Economics Disarms Those Who Say a Common-based Society is Impossible.

The biggest roadblock standing in the way of many people’s recognition of the importance of the commons-- the things we share together like the environment and the internet-- came tumbling down this week when Indiana University professor Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for economics.

Over many decades Ostrom has documented how various communities manage
common resources – grazing lands, forests, irrigation waters, fisheries— equitably and sustainably over the long term. The Nobel Committee’s recognition of her work effectively debunks popular theories about the Tragedy of the Commons, which hold that private property is the only effective method to prevent finite resources from
being ruined or depleted.

Awarding the world’s most prestigious economics prize to a scholar who champions cooperative behavior greatly boosts the legitimacy of the commons as a framework for solving our social and environmental problems. Ostrom’s work also challenges the current economic orthodoxy that there are few, if any, alternatives to privatization
and markets in generating wealth and human well being.

The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a scenario in which commonly held land is inevitably degraded because everyone in a community is allowed to graze livestock there. This parable was popularized by wildlife biologist Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s, and was embraced as a principle by the emerging environmental movement. But Ostrom’s research refutes this abstract concept once-and-for-all with the real
life experience from places like Nepal, Kenya and Guatemala.

“When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behavior,” she cites as an example. “It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.”

(Garrett Hardin himself later revised his own view, noting that what he described was actually the Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.)

Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, also winner of a Nobel prize, comments, “Conservatives used the Tragedy of the Commons to argue for property rights, and efficiency was achieved as people were thrown off the commons….What Ostrom has demonstrated is the existence of social control mechanisms that regulate the use of the commons without having to resort to property rights.”

The Nobel Committee’s choice of Ostrom is significant considering that many winners of the prize since it was initiated in 1968 have been zealous advocates of unrestricted markets, such as Milton Friedman, whose selection helped fuel the rise of market theory as the be-all end-all of economics since the 1980s. Policies based upon this narrow worldview sparked the rise of corporate power and the diminishment of
government’s role in protecting the commons.

While right-wing thinkers scoffed at the possibility of resources being shared in a way that maintains the common good, arguing that private property is the only practical strategy to prevent this tragedy, Ostrom’s scholarship shows otherwise.

“What we have ignored is what citizens can do and the importance of real involvement of the people involved,” she explains.

A classic example of this are the acequias, a centuries-old tradition of cooperative irrigation systems in New Mexico and Colorado where the small flow of water available for agriculture is allocated by the community as a whole through a democratic process.

Ostrom is the first woman to be awarded the Economics prize, which some observers say helps explain her emphasis on the role of people’s relationships in our economic arrangements rather than the focus on individualized market choices expounded by many male winners of the Nobel.

Equally noteworthy is the fact that Ostrom was not trained as an economist, but as a political scientist—a factor that may be even more useful in explaining her outside-the-box approach to economics.

Yale economist Robert Schiller, quoted in the New York Times, welcomed the merging of the two fields. “Economics has become too isolated and stuck on the view that markets are efficient and self-regulating. It has derailed our thinking.”

Elinor Ostrom has always been explicit in recognizing the importance of the commons—she helped found the International Association for the Study of the Commons, also based at Indiana University—and her selection as a Nobel Laureate marks an early milestone in the emergence of a commons-based society. Her works shows that our social, environmental and personal advancement depends on the vitality of the commons as well as the market in our lives.

This piece originally appeared in On the Commons.

(Posted in News and Views at 10:58 AM)

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize In Part Because "The USA Is Now Playing A More Constructive Role In Meeting The Great Climatic Challenges The World Is Confronting."

Joe Romm — 2009-10-09T16:45:27-08:00

In a stunning announcement (full text below), “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
Obama won, in part, for reversing the immoral efforts of the Cheney-Bush administration to block and subvert international climate negotiations:

Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.

We already knew that “Obama was willing to attend Copenhagen climate talks,” if he were invited. In an exclusive interview, Andrew Light, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and an expert on international climate talks, explained to CP that now, effectively, he has been:

Barack Obama is now the third sitting president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This is an enormous honor. The timing on this for those following the future of a new international climate treaty could not be more critical. The Peace Prize is presented in Oslo on December 10th. The UN climate talks, where the agenda will feature decisions on replacing the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012, start in Copenhagen on December 7th. The expectation that President Obama will now go for at least part of the UN climate talks is enormous as he’ll already be in Scandinavia.

Light coordinates CAP’s participation in the Global Climate Network, focusing on international climate change policy and the future of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. He is also director of the Center for Global Ethics at George Mason University. He adds some historical perspective:

Remember that Al Gore went immediately to the UN climate meeting in Bali after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. Gore’s speech at the Bali meeting, and closed door sessions with climate negotiators for two days following, is credited by some as having saved those talks from failure. Before Gore arrived the EU was about to walk out over protests that the US was holding up progress on the “Bali Action Plan,” the document that set the parameters for what success at Copenhagen is supposed to look like this December. It’s hard to imagine a more directed appeal for President Obama to come to Copenhagen and achieve a similar success.

While some may argue that this award is premature, I disagree. This is a clear statement by the Nobel Committee not merely of the importance of US multilateralism to genuine progress toward global peace, but also of their understanding that climate change has become a critical international issue.

Unrestricted emissions of GHGs represent perhaps the gravest, preventable threat to future world peace — a growing source of future strife, refugees, conflict, and wars (see “Memorial Day, 2029“). Al Gore and the IPCC won in 2007 “for their work to alert the world to the threat of global warming.” Alerting the world was and is vital. Taking action is even more crucial.
Obama and his international negotiating team led by Secretary of State Clinton have helped create the first genuine chance that the entire world will come together and agree to sharply diverge from the catastrophic business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions path. This award simultaneously acknowledges what they have achieved and pushes them and the world toward delivering on Obama’s promise. It is well deserved.
Here is the Nobel committee’s full statement:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Kudos to President Obama for inspiring the world and for starting to deliver on his unprecedented agenda of change. Kudos to the American public for rejecting the narrow, unilateralist, climate-destroying policies of his predecessor.
Article originally appeared on Climate Progress.
Image Credit: art_es_anna via Flickr, Creative Commons

(Posted in Politics at 4:45 PM)

Energy And Global Warming News For October 9: Granhom Brings 160,000 Clean Energy Jobs To Hard-Hit Michigan

Joe Romm — 2009-10-09T16:27:04-08:00

The WashPost of course didn’t use my headline, since for them, every silver lining has a cloud. Obviously Michigan has had massive job losses in the auto industry, but how exactly does that translate into a “yellow light” for green jobs, except as a too-cute play on words at the expense of the real story: Granholm has done her best to embrace the fastest growing source of new jobs in the nation and the world — clean energy jobs. It’s hard to hold her responsible for the incompetence and shortsightedness of the US auto industry, whose collapse has been decades in the making, but she clearly deserves a lot of the credit for making Michigan hospitable to clean energy industries.

In Michigan, A Yellow Light For Green Jobs

If the future of American manufacturing lies in green industries, the Michigan governor’s pursuit of jobs offers a cautionary tale.

Four years ago, Jennifer M. Granholm set out to remake her state, which took an exceptional walloping with the decline of the auto industry, as a pioneer in creating environmentally friendly jobs. Today, however, jobs are still disappearing much faster than she can create them, raising questions about how long it will take Michigan and other hard-hit states to find new industries to employ their workers.

Since taking office in 2003, Granholm has created 163,300 positions, her office says. She expects that a recent infusion of more than $1 billion from the Obama administration aimed at nurturing car battery and electric-vehicle projects will generate 40,000 more positions by 2020….

In her effort to attract employers, the governor has taken up the latest arms in the economic arsenal — tax credits, loans, Super Bowl tickets and a willingness to travel as far as Japan for a weekend to try to persuade an auto parts company to bring more jobs to Michigan. She has won solar and wind energy, electric car batteries, and movie production jobs. About 10,800 of the new positions came from overseas companies, according to her office, the fruits of visits to seven countries.

Religious Groups Lobby for Climate Bill

Religious groups are stepping up their lobbying efforts in support of climate change legislation, focusing on a goal all of their flock can agree on: helping the poor and vulnerable impacted by global warming.

A number of Jewish and Christian groups are choosing to bypass climate issues that are contentious within the faith community, such as whether global warming is man-made, and are instead zeroing in on proposals in Congress to provide international aid for people impacted by the negative effects of climate change.

The push for “international adaptation aid” is also part of a broader awareness effort launching today called “Day Six,” which aims to make the public and members of Congress more conscious of the moral imperative to pass legislation regulating carbon emissions.

“On the sixth day God created us, and he made us stewards of his creation,” Katie Paris, the communications director for the group Faith in Public Life, said Thursday on a conference call with reporters. She also explained why religious groups are focused on international adaptation aid: “Those who are hurt most and worst should not be helped the least and last,” she said.

Groups involved in the “Day Six” campaign are directly reaching out to hundreds of thousands of people in the faith community today with tools to build grassroots support for climate change legislation.

The campaign features a Web site with a 60-second video pressing the issue, social networking tools and an online petition to Senators, urging support for climate legislation with adequate funding for international adaptation programs.

Web Site Tracks Europe’s Clean Energy Growth

The European Commission this week introduced an open-access online tool to monitor the development of about a dozen low-carbon technologies in the trade bloc.

The commission said its Strategic Energy Technology Plan Information System, offered ways for citizens, researchers, investors and policy makers to map funding for projects in areas including hydropower, wind, photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, wave, geothermal, bioenergy, carbon capture and storage, smart grids, nuclear fission and fusion, hydrogen and fuel cells.

A so-called bubble graph maps the current status and the potential of energy technologies between 2010 and 2050, if funding is forthcoming.

Another tool, an energy cost calculator, allows users to choose different energy and cost situations to compare the performance of various technologies.

The initiative was begun as part of efforts by the commission to raise 50 billion euros of additional investment in crucial low-carbon technologies over the next 10 years.

The initiative also is part of efforts by Janez Potocnik, the union’s commissioner for science and research, to overcome the tendency of European governments to finance domestic projects rather than pool their resources and to ensure the bloc remains competitive with Japan, China and the United States in the development of low-carbon technologies.

Kingsnorth: A Blow Against Coal, or A Move For Clean Coal?

German utility E.On’s decision to temporarily shelve plans for a big coal-fired power plant in the U.K. is clearly big news. The fun part is trying to figure out just why it matters so much.

For starters, the proposed Kingsnorth project is more than just another power plant. The 1,600 megawatt station would have been the U.K.’s first new coal plant since Margaret Thatcher was in office, and became a huge lightning rod for environmental opposition. Greenpeace centered anti-coal protests on Kingsnorth. Climate researcher James Hansen targeted Kingsnorth when he equated coal power with “death trains.” That’s why environmental groups are cheering E.On’s retreat—many see the decision as a green victory over coal, akin to the Sierra Club’s relentless campaign against coal in the U.S.

Officially, E.On says the decision to delay Kingsnorth for at least 2-3 years is due to the recession, which has kneecapped the demand for electricity. “This is based on the global recession, which has pushed back the need for new plant in the UK to around 2016 because of the reduction in demand for electricity,” the power company said.

While the slowdown has led to an “unprecedented” decline in U.K. electricity demand, it seems somewhat of a stretch to expect another seven years of famine just as the global economy is turning the corner. Especially when the U.K. government itself expects energy demand to grow relentlessly, and whose biggest worry is how to keep the lights on over the next decade.

More likely, E.On’s decision to park the yet-to-built power plant is about a yet-to-be-developed technology: clean coal. The U.K. desperately wants to make clean coal technically and economically viable; its other energy alternatives are basically imported natural gas or nuclear plants that have yet to be built either. E.On wants clean coal to work, too—it’s one of a handful of European utilities jockeying for British government funds for clean-coal development.

UN talks to end without deal on crucial issues

U.N. climate talks in Bangkok will end Friday without progress on the pressing issues of emission targets for rich countries and financing for poor nations, who insist they will not sign a global warming deal unless those matters are resolved.

For months, negotiations have been deadlocked and delegates have begun raising doubts whether a new climate pact to rein in greenhouse gases can be reached by the time world leaders gather in Copenhagen in December. The pact would replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.

Rather than addressing the tough issues, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said late Thursday that the failure by rich countries to agree on ambitious emission cuts and billions of dollars in financing to help poor countries adapt to climate change has increased the distrust between the two sides.

“People in this negotiating process mainly developing countries say we have been engaging constructively over the past two weeks to put meat on the bones of an agreed outcome in Copenhagen,” de Boer said.

“But we are not seeing an advance on the key political issues,” he said. “The stark reality out there is that unless we see an advance on the key political issues, it is very difficult for negotiators in this process to continue their work in good faith.”

Even before the talks ended Friday afternoon, environmentalists including the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace were already criticizing governments for leaving the fundamental issues to future meetings in Barcelona next month.

States not meeting renewable energy goals

Across the USA, states are falling short of their goals to increase the use of renewable energy as Congress weighs a national renewable-energy standard.

Thirty-five states have set goals to use more electricity from solar panels, windmills and other renewable forms of energy, according to a database funded by the Energy Department. There is no central clearinghouse of states’ compliance records, but USA TODAY research and interviews with state and power company officials found nine states that have failed or expect to fail to meet their energy goals.

The states offer a lesson for the federal government, says Charles Benjamin of Western Resource Advocates, an environmental group. The House of Representatives passed a bill in June that called for 15% of the nation’s electricity to come from alternative sources in 2020 — up from 9% last year. A Senate bill with a similar goal is likely to be combined with a climate-change bill introduced last month. “Just because you want renewable energy doesn’t mean it will happen.”

In their quest to draw more renewable power, states have come up against obstacles such as the recession, red tape and an outdated transmission system that makes it difficult to move solar or wind power from where it’s made to where it’s needed.

Article originally appeared on Climate Progress.

(Posted in Climate Change at 4:27 PM)

Energy and Global Warming News for May 13

Joe Romm — 2009-05-14T15:31:22-08:00

Solar Hot Water for Toronto Homeowners

Solar Thermal comes to Canada (!), and guess who’s selling them the solar panels: not us.

In an innovative joint venture, Canadian natural gas giant Enbridge Gas Distribution has teamed up with green electricity marketer Bullfrog Power and the City of Toronto to promote solar thermal systems that promise to slash residential hot water heating costs by as much as 60 percent, or about $260 per year.

Under the program, announced Tuesday, London-based EnerWorks will supply the panels, which are certified for year-round use.

Homeowners can qualify for federal and provincial rebates to offset half of the $7,000-$10,000 capital outlay. Enbridge has anted up a $400,000 grant to further reduce costs for some residents.

Moderate Rise in Utility Bills Projected in Study of Cap-and-Trade Law

A Texas study projects that the average household would pay $17 to $27 more a month by 2013 if the U.S. Congress passes carbon cap-and-trade legislation. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which operates the state’s power grid, projected that utility bills could rise by $27 if electricity use remains the same, and by as little as $17 if higher energy prices created by cap-and-trade legislation encourage consumers to use less energy.

In March, the average utility bill in Texas ranged from $110 to $160. Analysts said the ERCOT study did not consider a major long-term benefit of cap-and-trade legislation: The accelerated development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies brought about by rising prices for fossil fuels.

Whitehouse: Senate Is Corrupted By Carbon Pollution Cash

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), in a Senate hearing on the EPA budget this morning, decried the extraordinary amount of spending by corporate global warming polluters to lobby Congress. Reading from a report on new lobbying disclosures, Whitehouse noted that carbon polluters such as electric utilities and oil and gas companies have spent nearly $80 million on lobbying just in the first quarter of 2009.

Climate Pollution Cash Shaping Fate Of Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Legislation

In a moment of candor, ACES co-sponsor Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the chair of the subcommittee in question, explained that fellow Democrats acting as representatives for climate polluters were holding up the bill:

“If we can reach agreement with the coal sector, with the steel, with the auto sector, with the refining sector on our committee, which is very representative of the Congress as a whole, then we believe that’ll be a template for passage in the Senate, as well. Because the agreements we’ll reach will be the very same agreements that those industry leaders … will be able to represent to senators are the basis for passage of legislation that they can support.”

Members of Markey’s energy and environment subcommittee with strong ties to those sectors include Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA: $50,942 from steel), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN: $113,033 from auto), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT: $177,946 from coal), and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX: $330,613 from oil).

$3B pledge jump-starts massive offshore wind project

The world’s largest offshore wind farm, the London Array, will begin construction this summer after the British government doubled the incentives for offshore wind energy, the project’s main owner, Denmark’s DONG Energy, said today.

The 1,000-megawatt Thames Estuary behemoth had been in doubt after Royal Dutch Shell PLC pulled out of the scheme last year because of rising costs, leaving DONG with a 50 percent stake, Germany’s E.ON with 30 percent and Abu Dhabi’s renewable energy fund, Masdar, with 20 percent.

Now the three partners have pledged to invest $3 billion for the 630-megawatt first phase of the project, which will be completed in time to deliver wind energy to the London Olympics in 2012.

G.E. Announces New York Battery Factory

General Electric announced today a $100 million investment to build a new factory in upstate New York that will make batteries — a sector with huge potential, according to G.E.’s chairman and chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt.

“We think the business gets to about $500 million in annual revenue by 2015,” Mr. Immelt told Green Inc., referring to the battery business. It could become a “$1 billion business a few years after that,” he added.

The batteries to be built at the new factory are not lithium-ion, the type widely considered to be the future of hybrid and electric cars.

Instead, they are sodium-based batteries — which will help to power G.E.’s hybrid locomotives after those are commercialized in 2010. The rationale, explained Mark Little, the director of global research at G.E., is that the sodium batteries store “a heck of a lot more energy” than lithium-ion ones.

Home Energy Savings Are Made In The Shade

Trees positioned to shade the west and south sides of a house may decrease summertime electric bills by 5 percent on average, according to a recent study of California homes by researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Compiled by Carlin Rosengarten

This piece originally appeared in Climate Progress.

Photo credit: Flickr/Alex Barth.

(Posted in News and Views at 3:31 PM)

News and Views -- December 7, 2007

WorldChanging Team — 2007-12-07T07:01:27-08:00

Big Fun with Climate Change (Approved by Al Gore)
Canada Announces $740K for Nova Scotia Biofuels, Ecological Projects
'Travel & Leisure' Celebrates Green Tourism, Ethical Travel
Companies Squeezing Power from Sun, Deserts in Southern California
Measuring the Social and Environmental Impacts of Small and Medium Enterprises

(Posted in News and Views at 7:01 AM)

News and Views -- December 6, 2007

WorldChanging Team — 2007-12-06T07:00:09-08:00

Info Tech’s Drive to Go Lean, Clean & Green
Facebook Beacon: A Cautionary Tale About New Media Monopolies

With Temps Warming, Meteorlogists Shape Fashion Trends
US Fuel Efficiency: Congress Mandates 35 m.p.g. by 2020
$1000 For an Entirely Off-Grid Computer

(Posted in News and Views at 7:00 AM)

News and Views -- December 5, 2007

WorldChanging Team — 2007-12-05T07:00:09-08:00

Pro/Am Online News: Targeted, Democratic Content Moderation

(Posted in News and Views at 7:00 AM)

News and Views -- December 4, 2007

WorldChanging Team — 2007-12-04T06:59:15-08:00

(Posted in News and Views at 6:59 AM)