Boulder finds out it’s not easy being green.

Boulder Colorado From last week’s Wall Street Journal comes news that despite the best of intentions from the local government and residents of Boulder, CO significant energy savings are yet to be realized.

Beyond the usual justifications on the whys and why-nots of any local initiative, the really interesting thing is that energy audits have not been terrifically successful in getting people to move forward on retrofits, despite understanding exactly where savings can be realized.

The obstacles include people being reluctant to change their habits and not practicing what they preach, nor following through on small changes in energy efficiency and behaviors.

The answer? “Two Techs in a Truck”

As many as 15 energy-efficiency teams go door-to-door throughout Boulder, CO. They’ll ask home and business owners for permission to caulk windows, change bulbs and install low-flow showerheads and programmable thermostats—all at taxpayer expense.

Even with ‘Copenhagen,’ toasty times ahead

Relative emissions graph

Last week I wrote about the post-COP15 emissions target deadline that whizzed by for most of the planet, and tried to put it into context. Of course, the larger question of what the resulting cuts would mean with regards to future warming remained unanswered, due to it being written during the wee hours of the morning. Fortunately, someone else also crunched the numbers and compared them to model predictions, New Scientist reports, arriving at a most unfortunate (but unsurprising) answer.

Déjà vu?

factory

It appears the Obama Administration is starting to eerily resemble the Bush Administration, at least when it comes to energy policy. In last week’s State of the Union address, President Obama touched on—albeit briefly—clean energy standards and climate change. Sadly, those “standards” reflected the days of recent past: investing in “clean coal” technology, nuclear power and biofuels. As for significant wind and solar power investment? Hmmm…

To make matters more dire, the Obama EPA has signed off on the Renewable Fuel Standard established under the Bush administration. The Renewable Fuel Standard supports energy-intensive corn production for ethanol, which is high in GHG as well as inefficient to produce. The EPA is also apparently in support of Carbon Capture and Storage technology which is said to reduce the amount of CO2 leaked into the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants. What about the damaging coal extraction process that leaves mountaintops bare, rivers polluted and coal ash? And nuclear energy? Never mind the issue of waste, the sheer number of new nuclear power plants that would have to be constructed to account for our ever-growing demand for energy is daunting in itself.

So where does this leave us? Hopefully Obama will understand that investing in truly clean sources of renewable energy, like wind and solar, is not only good for the environment, but good for our struggling economy.  Instead of investing in “clean coal” technology, let’s instead subsidize clean energy center training and education programs so coal miners can gain marketable skills in a safer, cleaner industry. Instead of a short term approach, let’s mix that with a long term agenda so we can, in time, ween off of the fossil fuel based economy we’ve grown so accustomed to and onto a green, renewable one. If the U.S. wants to “lead” in the global clean energy race, at this point, there really is no time left to waste.

55 countries down…?

There’s a lot of press today about the fact that 55 countries have submitted emissions reduction pledges to the U.N. as the deadline drew passed; note that 27 of them are in the EU. New Scientist has a nice summary, and Reuters India lists most of the targets.

Some of the more disappointing targets include our own, our neighbors to the north, and Korea. “The US previously pledged a cut of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 (equivalent to 3% from the conventional baseline of 1990)” (BBC). True to its word, the increasingly conservative Canadian government submitted the same relative target as the U.S. South Korea—whose emissions have more than doubled since 1990—has committed to an even smaller cut of 4% of 2005 levels. However, it has tries to play up the significance of these cuts by calling them a 30% cut from business as usual.

Below you can find a summary of the pledges of the top eight emitters (78%) of carbon dioxide, and what their effect might be. Please note that barring an international agreement in Mexico next winter, China and India’s targets are even less firm than those of other nations since they have vowed to decrease intensity (increase efficiency) by 40-45% & 16-20% respectively, rather than make cuts towards a specific target. These estimates are therefore a best case scenario under the unlikely condition of zero future growth.

Baseline2007% GlobalCut2020
MT CO2YearMT CO2MT CO2
1China6083.020076083.027.57%40.00%3649.8
2U.S.5857.120055853.526.53%17.00%4861.4
E.U.4135.419903971.118.00%20.00%3308.3
3Russia2302.619901579.07.16%20.00%1842.1
4India1369.920071369.96.21%16.00%1150.7
5Japan1069.419901235.15.60%25.00%802.1
8Canada543.42005540.82.45%17.00%451.0
9South Korea361.42005499.02.26%4.00%346.9
World200729320.016.09%24600.9

MT = megatonne. approximately 2.2 billion pounds.
Countries 7 & 8 are the United Kingdom and Germany, both members of the European Union.

Sources: Emissions data, and pledges from stories linked in this post.

Report on Second Climate Congress

by congress planning committee member Joanna Herlihy:

The second session of the Climate Emergency congress was even livelier that the first. Delegates found that prioritization of their recommendations had not progressed much beyond the ‘laundry list’ categorization of the ‘Draft Recommendations’ issued a few weeks earlier. Apparently this was partly due to technical and organization problems with incorporating responses to the online survey, most of which came in during the last few days.

The version of the recommendations presented to the second session included a new proposal advanced by the drafting group to encapsulate suggestions to set up provisions for ensuring citizen participation in and adequate city staffing for follow-up on the recommendations.

The next breakout into small groups was self-organized by delegates according to ‘open space’ principles,  grouping according to areas of interest, which resulted in several potential task forces that intend to continue working in the areas of environmental justice, education, building energy efficiency, and urban forestry. Discussions on goal-setting and how best to coordinate city-community initiatives would have been useful but did not occur.

The finale, which extended an hour overtime, focused on whether the congress should endorse some broad principles or recommend formation of a City Manager-appointed committee of citizens to promote and coordinate response to the climate emergency. In the general discussion, observations ranged from “the city already has such a committee with almost the same mission” (Climate Protection Action Committee) to “such citizen groups function better independently of the city government”.

The facilitator’s suggestion that the option of a citizen committee be voted on without specifying who would appoint it was rejected. An intriguing new suggestion was advanced during the discussion: add authority over a ‘carbon budget’ to the duties of the city council-appointed City Auditor. The congress finally agreed to reconvene for a third session, probably in March, to vote on some well organized recommendations in printed form to strengthen local climate protection efforts.

Regional carbon market developments

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states haved capped and will reduce CO2 emissions from the [electric] power sector 10% by 2018.

States sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI will spur innovation in the clean energy economy and create green jobs in each state.

Continue reading

For some, C-tax is a four letter word

Science Daily has a nice summary of a recent research paper published in Psychological Science about people’s willingness to pay for higher environmental quality. A particularly well-known theory in this area is the environmental Kuznets curve, which relates increased wealth to increased acceptance of costs for a higher quality environment. These researchers instead looked at the acceptance of these costs across individuals of different political leanings.

For those of you who enjoy academic papers, or are otherwise interested in the nitty-gritty, you can read the paper itself at the principal author’s website.

Clearing the Air

From a record-breaking freeze threating an entire crop of citrus in Florida to significant snowfall in England, many are wondering just how “real” global warming actually is…considering how cold it’s been lately. To set the record straight, let’s begin by using the term “climate change” instead of “global warming.” While indeed the Earth’s core temperature is rising at an alarming rate, what that temperature rise actually does is shift the various ecosystem temperatures on Earth either up or down; it doesn’t necessarily mean temperatures will be high everywhere, but that the climate will, in fact, change drastically in one way or another. Some previous Ice Ages, for example, were triggered by changes in ocean currents and surface water temperature due to cold, fresh water from the melting polar ice caps disrupting major ocean currents. NASA highlights this important weather / climate distinction on their website. Please pass this information along to any skeptics who might need additional information. If we’re going to reverse climate change on a global scale, one of the first critical steps is education. 

Super (secret) greenhouse gases

ozone hole Environmentalists had great expectations for “Hopenhagen,” and the talks received a lot of press long before they even rolled around. Yet another international meeting one month earlier was arguably of equal importance, foreshadowed the events in Denmark, and received almost no attention1: the annual meeting of Montreal Protocol signatories. Read Solve Climate founder David Sassoon’s write-up.

1. None of the few dozen stories on Google News which mention the Montreal Protocol last year preceded the event. Most are specialist coverage of its impacts on various industries or countries still using CFCs, and a few others comment on Copenhagen by contrasting the successful effort to combat ozone depletion versus the relative lack of progress on global warming.

MA gets gubernatorial group’s guidance on retrofits

The National Governors Association announced yesterday that it would be providing support for the development of “policy academies” focusing on building retrofits in six states, including Massachusetts.

A Policy Academy is a highly interactive team-based process for helping a select number of states develop and implement an action plan to address a complex public policy issue. Participating states receive guidance and technical assistance from NGA Center staff and faculty experts and consultants from the private sector, research organizations, academia and the federal government.