Climate Change

Jon Stewart vs. Al Gore: “Your Move, Sir”

Kristina Haddad — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:42:00 -0500

BY JENNA CITTADINO, CLIMATE POLICY PROGRAM ASSOCIATE

Last week Jon Stewart interviewed Al Gore on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart about Gore's new book, Our Choice. (Our Choice is the follow up to An Inconvenient Truth and lays out solutions instead of simply explaining the problem, but please note I have not yet read this book.) I saw something that you rarely see on The Daily Show-Stewart challenged a liberal democrat about a cause on which he agrees, and the interview resembled an intense chess match.

Stewart shared that he believes the science, he has read the books, but he, "Still [doesn't] know what to do." Why isn't there a quick fix?

I found the interview very insightful to what the general public is probably feeling. An Inconvient Truth was released in 2006. I would argue that it was the film that made the general public aware that global warming and climate change is a real problem that we need to fix now. Three years later, the problem is not only still in existence, but getting much worse. I believe people are frustrated that there is a problem over which they have such little control.

First off, Americans needs to feel empowered to combat climate change instead of simply feeling frustrated if we are really going to fix this problem. Each and every one of us has the power to assess our daily lifestyle and calculate ways to decrease our carbon footprint by saving energy and using less resources (and saving money!). Tiny changes in our lifestyles can lead to major impact. (Take the 20% in 20 Days Challenge and reduce your own carbon footprint 20% in 20 Days by incorporating these Climate-Smart Strategies into your daily lifestyle!)

Second, any great change takes time. Our country has spent years developing our technology and building our economy not realizing the impact we were making on our planet. Now we understand the danger of our actions and it is time to reverse that impact through new and improved clean technology. I, like Stewart, would have loved to see this change happen three years ago and witness this problem solved, but realistically that cannot happen.

When Stewart challenged Gore about the "one great solution," Gore rattled off statistics about how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere on a daily basis. But what I missed hearing was Gore expand about the many different solutions that are in existence today. I also would have liked to see Gore point out that by transitioning to clean technology we are developing the green economy and creating many new jobs (such as building an infrastructure to transmit solar energy), much like Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps did to help America out of the Great Depression.

In conclusion, this challenging time is actually a huge opportunity for America. Stewart set up Gore to give the public not only some answers but a bit of hope during this bleak time, but since Stewart won the chess match, it was not only Gore who felt defeated, but the many Americans who witnessed the interview.

Why Does Oklahoma Want To Drown New York?

Terry Tamminen — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:49:00 -0500

As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began hearings on carbon regulation, debate ran along traditional battle lines, but with a new script. Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA) and John Kerry (MA) moved away from discussing the environmental impacts of climate change - - and the reason, therefore, to take action to reduce carbon emissions - - and focused instead on the economic benefits of a domestic clean energy economy. Meanwhile, Republicans James Inhofe (OK) and Lamar Alexander (TN) complained that energy bills would rise and Americans would lose jobs.

It's a good thing that Congress is finally looking at the economics of climate change and carbon reductions, because the overwhelming amount of data - - buttressed by common sense - - shows that reducing carbon will be very good for our economy overall. One of the biggest sources of carbon reductions will be in the area of energy efficiency and that doest cost money, it saves money. Walmart, for example, said that if each of their 100 million customers bought just one compact florescent light bulb to replace an incandescent bulb, those consumers would save over $3 billion in electricity costs over the life of the bulbs (after deducting the higher up-front cost of the new bulbs).

Renewable energy, another carbon-reducing technology, creates jobs in the US and saves money too. Alan Horn, President and CEO of Warner Brothers, told me recently that his studio is covering large soundstages with enough solar to provide up to 10% of their massive energy needs. After a 7 to 10 year payback, they will get that amount of their electricity free for decades to come. Moreover, that multi-million dollar project put people to work in Burbank, California, not China or India, and didn't take away a single job from anyone.

It's misleading when some Senators focus on trivial or entirely bogus costs, but especially troubling when their carbon smokescreen obscures a bigger truth - - inaction will cost far more than tackling the problem. No better example of the mammoth costs associated with denial can be found along our coastlines.

As discussed at a the recent H209 Water Forum in New York, cities around the world are building barriers to protect against rising sea level and increased storm activity that is related to the impacts of climate change and it costs real money - - Venice: $7 billion; London: $8 billion; New Orleans: $700 million; the California coast: $14 billion, plus $1.4 billion a year for maintenance.

In New York itself, $400 million was just spent to upgrade pumps that remove rising waters out of subways. Experts at the conference predicted billions more will be needed to protect telecommunications, power lines, and other NY infrastructure that sits below sea level. Even at the lowest end of the range of catastrophic climate impacts predicted, NY will suffer massive street flooding and property damage unless more protections are built. Further inaction on reducing carbon will only drive these costs higher.

"I'm sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won't find much consolation in green welfare programs," said Senator Inhofe at the hearing. Ironically, building this entire additional infrastructure to deal with rising waters will use a lot of cement, so Inhofe was aimed in the wrong direction again. In fact, companies like W.L. Gore make devices to scrub carbon and other pollution from cement kiln smokestacks and create lots of American jobs in the process (and valuable exports too!).

Given all of the obvious economic benefit of evolving to energy that is considerably more efficient/clean/domestic, one can only be left to wonder if Inhofe's positions mean that Oklahoma just doesn't like New York? Or California? Or Venice? Maybe the Senator is just jealous that his state doesn't have a coastline, but unless he and his colleagues start making decisions based on real economic data, his state may also be left without a share of the 21^st century industries that will power the globe and lead us out of the current recession.

Patterson’s Bold Carbon Gamble

Terry Tamminen — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:00 -0500

California's state budget gap was about $40 billion this year. New York's some $50 billion. Every state in the Union is struggling with drastically lower revenues and higher costs for services of every kind, washing state capitals with red ink. At the polls next year, governors who are facing elections - - including Governor David Patterson of New York - - may find themselves politically drowned by such gargantuan deficits.

So faced with closing schools, hospitals, fire stations, and kicking struggling families off of welfare roles, governors are turning instead, like the famous bank robber Willy Sutton, to wherever the money may be. In New York's case, at least some of it is hidden in a carbon piggy bank.

Late last year, ten northeastern states started a cap-and-trade system covering carbon emissions from powerplants. Each facility must buy its initial "allowances" for whatever they emit from the state, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. Each state decides how to spend this money, but generally they have committed it to energy efficiency programs.

That's where Patterson took a bold gamble. He proposed using $90 million of the state's $202 million in carbon allowance revenues this year to subsidize the state's budget deficit. Many criticized the move, fearing that environmental and energy efficiency goals won't be met and that other states might copy the move, making matters worse. That may also cost the Governor some "green" friends, hurting his chances at the polls next year.

But maybe he did New Yorkers - - and the rest of us - - a real favor. First of all, more than half the carbon money still goes to energy investments. For example, Patterson recently announced a buy-back program for inefficient old appliances. That will save lots of energy as people trade up for newer energy-efficient models, stimulating the economy at the same, just as the "cash for clunkers" program helped car dealers.

Of course Patterson could have proposed higher taxes instead of raiding the carbon piggy bank. But is it a good idea to tax workers and businesses more, penalizing hard work, or is it better to essentially tax waste and thereby encourage conservation? Many have suggested this very idea as a way to deal with climate change - - tax carbon polluters, which raises the cost of electricity and gasoline - - but lower taxes on payrolls and businesses. Such a zero-sum "tax shift", it is argued, would reward hard work and discourage wasteful use of energy, both worthy outcomes. In any case, it would force users of energy to pay the true cost of their supply - - a cost, measured in climate change impacts, that is borne today by everyone regardless of how much energy they use.

Climate activists' immediate reaction to Patterson's move was negative, but perhaps it's worth another look. If governors everywhere knew there was carbon piggy bank in their state, we might soon see more support for carbon cap-and-trade systems and quickly earn bi-partisan support for tackling climate change. Given that Congress is stalled on climate legislation, this may be one of our best bets for an American contribution to a global deal in Copenhagen later this year. If that happens, we will have Governor Patterson to thank for being bold enough to get us started.

Performance Anxiety

Terry Tamminen — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:57:00 -0400

It's not just the ads showing a baby-boomer couple sitting in matching bathtubs on a beach at sunset where you can find performance anxiety these days. Try looking in the hardware aisle and at the gas station.

Rather than ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs, for example, California lawmakers set an efficiency performance standard - - which was adopted by the feds - - so in 2012, you won't be able to buy energy-wasting bulbs. That spurred Phillips to develop and market their "Halogena Energy Saver" incandescent bulb that is 30% more efficient than conventional versions. The performance standard approach - - instead of government picking winners and losers - - clearly worked for both environmentally minded policy makers and bottom-line minded businesses.

The stealth performance standard that will hit another part of daily life - - your car - - relates to gasoline and diesel fuel. California adopted a "low carbon fuels standard" that says the carbon content of fuels sold in the state must decline 10% by 2020. Fuel sellers can achieve that by slashing emissions from refineries ahead of other carbon regulations; by blending petroleum with lower carbon-content fuels like sustainable biofuels; by selling non-carbon fuels like hydrogen; or anything else that reduces the carbon content of the total portfolio of fuels sold.

Senator Barack Obama embraced making this a national standard almost two years ago and many lawmakers of both parties like this technology-neutral, competition-enhancing approach to reducing carbon. Chevron, Toyota, and several others also have endorsed this approach, because it allows them to find the cheapest ways to comply with the policy goal and perhaps to develop solutions they can market to others. Nothing like a good profit motive to accelerate public policy.

Of course this spells trouble for companies that are hoping to market fuels made from high carbon-footprint sources like the Canadian tar sands. Given that it takes up to four times as much energy to extract and refine that gunk into anything useful, it's a sure bet the resulting products won't find much of a market if fuel sellers are trying to lower the carbon content of their products. An online investor news service has a list of stocks that are exposed, at least in part, to this significant/growing liability - - may be a good list to keep handy of stocks to avoid:

http://www.oilandgasstocknews.com/OGSN/StockList.asp

Based on the successes of the performance standards approach so far, academics and policy makers around the world are looking for more ways to use them, instead of prescriptive bans or mandates. At least in some human endeavors, it seems performance anxiety can be a good thing.

Live Web Chat: Lisa Margonelli on Climate Legislation

Troy K. Schneider — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:09:00 -0400

Has the momentum shifted on climate change? Lisa Margonelli, author of Oil on the Brain and director of New America's Energy Policy Initiative, argues that last week may have been the turning point. And a recent Politico article notes that big business is now pushing the Senate and White House to act.

Margonelli will be taking questions on the current state of the energy and climate debate in this week's New America/Politico Live Chat. This real-time, text-based online discussion will kick off at Noon ET / 9am PT on Tuesday, Oct. 6.

You may submit questions in advance via the comments form below -- or just return to this page at Noon ET / 9am PT on Tuesday to join in the conversation.

<a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&task=viewaltcast&altcast_code=473dcadc04" >Climate policy: Lisa Margonelli, NAF</a>

* * *

Previous New America/Politico chats -- with with Fellow Dayo Olopade on the Obama Administration's faith-based initiatives, and with Education Policy Program staffers Lisa Guernsey and Christina Satkowski on the future of Head Start, and Health Policy Program Director Len Nichols on the current state of health reform efforts -- have their full transcripts archived.

Agree to Disagree:

Kristina Haddad — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:33:00 -0400

By Sasha Abelson, Sustainability and Climate Policy Advisor

Each week I compile a newsletter of carbon and climate related articles. As I sift through articles about cap and trade, energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc., I always find myself drawn to the reader comments that follow the article. Inevitably, there will be a quote from the person who believes the earth is cooling, a rant from the guy who thinks government should not interfere with our emissions and the person who thinks a 2 degree change in global temperatures is not something to stress out about.

My first reaction to these comments is usually outrage. My heart rate speeds up and I want to cite the IPCC's fourth assessment report and attach links to the satellite photos which show the retreat of Wilkin's ice shelf... but then I stop myself and think of a more persuasive approach.

I concede there may be plenty of political and philosophical differences on climate change and the idea of government regulation of emissions. However, I think it is more important to focus on certain issues that we call can agree on.

Saving money through energy saving techniques:

Energy efficiency translates into a language we can all understand - saving money. Companies such as the Gap and Wal-Mart have learned that by measuring and analyzing their carbon footprint they can determine where they can cut back on energy use (and CO2 emissions) thereby positively affecting the bottom line. These types of savings can occur at the individual level as well. Small acts such as switching to LEDs or CFLs and carpooling actually end up as money in your pocket. Who can argue with that?

Worldwide health benefits attributable to cleaner air:

The effects of air pollution on human health are drastic and widespread. Air pollution most commonly affects the body's respiratory system and the cardiovascular system. As a society, we pay for the health effects of air pollution through increased health care costs to treat these conditions as well as a diminished quality of life. I'm sure most people reading this would welcome cleaner air, improved health and lower treatment costs.

So... while there is much we may not agree on I think it is more important to focus on what we do agree on. Because, reducing emissions for any reason - is a good thing.

What Causes Us To Take Action?

Jenna Cittadino — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:09:00 -0400

This last weekend, I rented Arctic Tale, a film produced by National Geographic, because I was in the mood for something fun and light (and I couldn't resist the picture of the adorable polar bear cub on the front). Little did I know I was in for a depressing ride. In fact, I don't think I've cried that hard in a long time.

In general, I have trouble watching nature films because I always feel bad for the innocent victims of the food chain, but this was different. All of the animals in the arctic share a commonality-they are all victims of climate change.

Watching a bear cub freeze to death because of an unordinary blizzard (caused by climate change) is the first time I lost it. Watching a momma bear break away from her cub at a very early age because she could no longer provide for them both (their hunting season was reduced by three months due to anthropogenic climate change and rising temperatures), did not help my mood. Watching a beautiful, strong polar bear swim through the open ocean trying to get to a rock island to find food to survive, and then practically drown was heartbreaking. Watching an entire herd of two-ton-each walruses almost drown together while swimming for weeks through the open ocean to get to a rock island to find reprieve from the cold water that threatens to freeze them to death was devastating.

This movie was not an uplifting film, but a reminder of the importance of why we must change our lifestyles. It is a reminder every time we leave a room to turn off a light; it is a reminder every time we do our wash to use cold water and save energy; it is a reminder every time we have an opportunity to change an incandescent light bulb to replace it with a compact fluorescent. Even if we have already made many lifestyle changes, it is stories like this that can inspire us and push us further to make a difference and change our lifestyle even more.

I highly recommend Arctic Tale to gather insight into what life is like in the Arctic, and how our actions and consumptive lifestyles are changing the climate and impacting the beautiful lives that exist there. These animals rely on age old wisdom and instinct, and are unable to adapt to the ever-changing climate. The movie is causing me to once again reevaluate my lifestyle, and take even greater action.

Obama - - the Secret Weapon Against Climate Change

Terry Tamminen — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:10:00 -0400

Ten days after being elected, then President-elect Obama put a stake in the ground on climate change - - he announced at the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles that the US would adopt the world-leading policies of California for the United States. Reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) 80% by 2050 and, to make a substantial down-payment, cut them to 1990 levels by 2020. Of course the EU has agreed to deeper cuts in the near term (but they got started sooner), but no nation had committed to such a dramatic cut as California - - and now the U.S.

Then, before the inauguration night party hangovers had faded in DC, President Obama quietly told his USEPA to get started regulating GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act (consistent with a Supreme Court ruling along those lines two years ago) to make good on his pledge. He adopted California's vehicle emission standards to slash GHGs from transportation and got ailing car companies to stand with him, even if their smiles were parked in Detroit, as he made the announcement in the Rose Garden. The President also proposed a cap-and-trade system in his first budget and supported the Waxman-Markey climate bill that recently passed the House.

Now, our President goes to the G8 Summit and extracts a pledge by developed nations to endorse his goals, while also snagging a huge concession from developing nations. Myopic critics complain that the big boys didn't go far enough, but they have completely missed the significance of the breakthrough. All of the world leaders - - developed and developing nations alike - - have now embraced the goal of keeping the average global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. To accomplish that, all nations will have to make significant short term GHG cuts as well as the important long term changes.

Not bad for less than six months on the job. Even more impressive, he's doing this relatively quietly, building the edifice a few bricks at a time without much fanfare, but clearly focused on an impressive finished product. A few more successes like this and the "secret weapon" will be a secret no longer. Remember he does all of this and still manages to get a night on the town in Paris with his wife. Now that's impressive!

Mon Cheri Paris

Jenna Cittadino — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:57:00 -0400

My husband and I decided to vacation in Paris for ten days this past March. What a fantastic city! The food, the wine, the art, the people, the shopping, the fashion, and the mass transportation. That's right-one doesn't always rave about how great the mass transportation is in the City of Love, but I will.

First off, we did not need to use a cab the entire time we were there. We flew into Charles de Gaulle airport and were able to easily find the train that took us into the city. The train dropped us off about a block and a half from our apartment, and we had a short walk to our temporary home. All ten days we were there, we used the (surprisingly clean) Metro, taking us from our home base in the Latin Quarter (where we enjoyed the fashions of the university students) to the outskirts of the city to visit the Marmottan Museum (where we were mesmerized by Monet's masterpieces) and up to the top of Montmarte (where we climbed the breathtaking Sacre Couer and soaked in the best views of the city). It took us everywhere cheaply and easily.

We spent most of our ten days in Paris because we wanted to really experience the city, but we did make exceptions for Versailles (we took a train to explore Louis XIV's celebratory, indulgent palace) and for the Champagne region (we took the high speed train to visit the birthplace of the bubbly drink that Dom Pérignon once described as "drinking the stars;" he could not have described it better).

We played our role as cheesy tourists by snapping photos of the public bicycle stations that were neatly set up throughout the city. Although we did not use the service, what a great idea for all cities! Anyone can deposit coins to rent a bicycle and then return the bike at another bicycle stop within the city. Who wants to lug their bikes down five flights of windy stairs (that is so common in the old Parisian apartment buildings)? Or if you walk somewhere, but decide you want a change of pace, you can rent a bike; what a great solution. My dear Paris has thought of everything!

I was especially aware and in awe of these fantastic mass transportation options because I live 19 miles from work, but I have an average daily commute of 2 hours. It made me wonder about some solutions for Los Angeles, another city that I love. Our metro does not connect the entire city, making it a form of transportation that is not used as often as it should or could be. I think an underground train infrastructure is sometimes thought of as overwhelming, but instead of underground trains, what about above the ground trains like Paris, connecting the various neighborhoods within the city, and even connecting the suburbs outside of Los Angeles? This would diminish traffic, reduce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions, and although there would still be a commute for those living outside the city, at least those people could relax and read.

Paris has a long history of establishing trends that the world soon follows. (Where do you think our forefathers got the idea that white wigs were fashionable? From a balding Louis XIV who embraced his challenged hairline by making wigs a trend.) America continues to look to Paris for advice on food, fashion, and wine. I hope one day Los Angeles will look to Paris to copy them on their transportation trends.

Now I Know How Al Gore Feels

Terry Tamminen — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:32:00 -0400

In 1984, Al Gore held a hearing in Congress about global warming and urged his colleagues to do something about it. As we now know, he was ridiculed and largely ignored for the best part of two decades before being vindicated with a Nobel Prize and an Oscar (oh yeah, and another Congressional hearing, at which he was taken far more seriously).

I've been an environmental advocate for the same couple of decades, always suspecting that my friends raised an eyebrow or two over my predictions and admonitions about sustainability (my family, however, was not subtle about raising their eyebrows). I worked for the day when thinking "green" would be a normal part of everyday life. Well, just as Al Gore's day(s) arrived in 2007, my days arrived this week.

First, I turned on a Los Angeles Laker game and found the entire team wearing "NBA Green Week" tee shirts. The NBA.com website lists dozens of things anyone can do to live more sustainably (and save money in the process!). When a major sports league feels that all they need to say is "green" and that it's a good color for their brand, our time has come.

The second big "arrival" moment came this week when the Honda Clarity - - an all-electric car powered by hydrogen and a fuel cell - - was named the "2009 World Green Car" at the New York International Auto Show. "The FCX Clarity is an utterly real, hydrogen-fuelled luxury sedan that provides the amenities people expect in a premium car with 430 km range, fuel consumption of about 3.3 litres/100 km (72 mpg US) equivalent and zero tailpipe emissions," the judges wrote. I drive one in Los Angeles and have long believed in the future of this technology - - but the future has arrived today.

Maybe the message in this is simply that we can invent our future when we have the vision to imagine it. We need not fear those who give warnings of dire consequences, just hear their messages as opportunities to evolve, invent, and invest in something new. That will mean a lot of "green" days ahead.