On June 3rd, a panel of experts was convened at the Cambridge Public Library to discuss the federal climate policies being proposed at that time to regulate greenhouse gases, and what their impacts might be. The panel was moderated by Rob Garrity, the Executive Director of Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN). The panelists were three climate policy experts: Policy Consultant Sonia Hamel, Professor Michael Dorsey, and Policy Analyst Peter Shattuck.
The panel discussed the American Power Act extensively, concluding that there were both positive and negative aspects of the bill and there was not agreement whether the bill should be supported or not.
If you could not make it, or would like to revisit the panel session, we have posted a version for your viewing pleasure, the question and answer period is a separate video:
When we consider the many actions we may take to fight global warming and become more responsible citizens of earth, do we often think of our roofs? At most, green roofs are the topic of impassioned discussion, but other alterations aren’t mentioned or considered.
The discussion of altering roofs first became a heated (ha) topic in the U.S. when the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, brought the concept of white roofs to the table in 2009. He proposed that, though it may seem a silly action to suggest, if we could make all of the roofs and dark paved surfaces white, we would be able to save emissions equal to taking all the cars off of the roads for eleven years.
Using white surfaces to fight warming works because the white roofs reflect the Sun’s rays before they are absorbed; after absorption the rays are only emitted by the receiving material (e.g. a black roof, black pavement, etc.) as heat (long-wave radiation or infrared), which has a hard time getting back out through the atmosphere. The shortwave (UV) rays that the sun sends in are much more capable of penetrating the atmosphere, in both directions. As a result, the white roofs effectively send the heat back out the way it came, before it’s turned into heat!
This concept continues to be relevant; a study came out last month that suggests that urban areas are warming at accelerated rates when compared to rural areas. The study also found that areas that have the highest potential for increased urban heat island effects, have the most potential for increased populations within the next 50 years, meaning more people in smaller spaces, including many without access to air conditioning. While daytime temperatures may warm equally, the nights in urban areas are expected to grow much warmer, resulting in a smaller difference between day and night temperatures as global warming accelerates; city residents will say goodbye to the relief of a cool night after a sweltering sunny day. Since this is expected to be a significant and near-future impact, several actions were suggested within the study, including usage of green spaces, strategic architecture, and white roofs.
Additionally, the aspect of home heating comes into play. Dr. Chu insisted that the white roofs not only reflect sunlight to keep homes cool in the summer, but that they would actually reflect heat back into homes in the winter, effectively reducing costs (and emissions) in both seasons. This was disputed by Keith Oleson, who suggests that in winter, the effects of white roofs would be the same, cooling by reflection. This conclusion illustrates the point that the world is not uniform; white roofs may be a perfect tactic for urban areas in locations that do not experience cold, but perhaps a less ideal choice for locations with less-than-mild winter months.
Here’s a video of Secretary Chu’s explanation that is posted on the US Department of Energy’s official YouTube page (also a great source for high quality video of the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, presently…).
After an unproductive meeting of the Democratic Caucus this week, the Senate Climate Change bill appeared to be in a state of limbo, teetering on the edge of total collapse. The large scale meeting between Democratic senators was supposed to illuminate the path for a unified consensus of the provisions in the legislation. Instead, the meeting resulted in little unity between the senators and an increasing amount of strife between advocates of competing legislation. At the meeting, the show was stolen by a handful of environmental advocates who came to the floor armed with posters of smokestacks, aimed at winning over moderates to their side, but did little to help advocate for a unified bill, despite the fact that most senators were in agreement over the need for America to achieve energy independence and move away from fossil fuels.
While Reid told reporters yesterday that the hour-long meeting was “productive” and allowed for “full, frank discussion,” other senators presented an opposing viewpoint. “There’s not a unanimous consensus on the need to price carbon,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) after emerging from the meeting. “There’s a unanimous consensus on the need to move us towards energy independence, away from fossil fuels, away from petroleum.” However, as the meeting has showed, it will be the specifics of the bill that will make or break the climate bill in the Senate. On one side, Bingham, Cantwell, and Reid are pushing for a set of comprehensive climate change measures which will increase the number of climate jobs in the United States as a general goal. From the opposing side, Senators Lieberman and Kerry continue to work on a specific climate bill which will reduce carbon emissions up to 80% from their 2005 level by the mid-century via mandatory cap on emissions. Despite the overarching belief that the government ought to take measures to take America off of its addiction to foreign oil and build a sustainable energy future, it may be the petty disagreement on the specifics that will hamper the efforts on the greater ideal.
At least for now, the greenhouse gas policies of President Obama will remain in place, despite some opposition in the Congress. The Senate last week, rejected a controversial new bill, which would deny the EPA the right to regulate carbon emissions from major industrial polluters and power plants across the nation. Coming at a time when the President’s climate change bill remains stalled in the Senate, the vote is a positive, if lone, sign, reaffirming the commitment of most Senators to combat global warming. “If ever there was a vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The President also took note, telling supporters that the vote was “yet another reminder” of the pro-climate atmosphere in the Congress and the need for a comprehensive climate bill.
After a bitter debate on the floor, stemming from discussion about the stalled climate bill, the measure was rejected with a vote of 53-47. If adopted, the measure would have barred the EPA from regulating and placing restrictions on carbon emissions on vehicles as well as industrial activity, rights that the EPA was entitled to under the Clean Air Act. The Republicans and 6 Democrats who supported the bill claimed that the EPA had no right to regulate climate emissions, and that this right was reserved to Congress alone. On the other side of the aisle, the White House and Senate Democrats, referring frequently to the oil spill in the Gulf, argued that it made no sense to undermine efforts to curtail emission reduction efforts which would lower the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
However, not all green groups were thrilled with the rejection of the bill; the environmental group Greenpeace reacted with alarm to the vote, citing the 6 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill, as well as the very close margin as causes for concern and alarm, warning that “was nowhere near a blowout in our favor.” Despite this, most environmental advocates in the White House agree that the strength of the Democratic bloc in Congress should not be underestimated and that the action may give new hope to the ill-fated climate change bill.
Just last December, polls had the US’s belief in Global Warming down 8%, and 9% fewer people believed its anthropogenic (man-made) origins. The same trend had been measured by various polls several months prior, as well.
There was plenty of speculation as to the reason for this, some pointing to the unusually extreme snowstorms (which are, if anything, only an indication of Climate Change, by the by), “Climate Gate” or the Republican discontent with a new Democratic president. While, since the release of those poll results scientists have shaken their heads in disappointment and wonder, no concrete reason for the downturn in public understanding was ever identified.
A study released June 8th by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities suggests that public concern for global warming (and the resulting climate change) is finally on an up-sweep:
“Since January, public belief that global warming is happening rose four points, to 61 percent, while belief that it is caused mostly by human activities rose three points, to 50 percent. The number of Americans who worry about global warming rose three points, to 53 percent. And the number of Americans who said that the issue is personally important to them rose five points, to 63 percent.”
One can only imagine how many environmentally minded citizens and scientists heaved relieved sighs across the country, having heard this news, thinking “Phew, thank you, there is still hope for our people, after all.” I know this was my initial thought.
Further confirmation of the public’s understanding comes from a Stanford poll completed June 7th; it indicates that trust in climate scientists is high, up three points to 71% trusting moderately or highly. It’s important to note that their results show a 5 point drop (from 2008 to 2009) in public belief in the fact that global warming is occurring, but the scientists maintain positivity in that the majority of the U.S. understands that global warming is happening.
Jon Krosnik, the scientist in charge of the Stanford-AP poll regarding public opinions of environment and energy. They have been conducting annual pools since 2006 with the same questions, and suggest in a new study that wording is key and can change the results of a study dramatically. Krosnik and his fellow authors were unabashed in naming names of problematic polls from otherwise esteemed institutions, and some feathers have unquestionably been ruffled. While Mr. Krosnik remains certain that our country’s concern for Climate Change has only been underestimated by most pollsters, others maintain that “waning belief in global warming and fading concern about its effects are consistent findings.”
How are we to know whose findings to believe? For now, let us move forth with the conclusion that we ought to err on the side of caution when it comes to poll wording. Possibly more importantly, remember that polls are simply surveys of samples, and the future is in our own hands.
If you’ve been itching to voice your opinion on state global warming legislation, now’s your chance! Public hearings are being held across the state next month to discuss the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Target and Draft Committee Implementation Plan for 2020.
A little background:
In August 2008, Governor Patrick signed into law the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), an Act that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by 2050, with a 2020 target set between 10 and 25 percent below 1990 levels. Massachusetts has already promulgated greenhouse gas reporting regulations under the Act; 2009 emissions will be the first year reported. The Act requires that by January 1, 2011 the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), develops an implementation plan for achieving the reductions required to meet the 2020 target.
The Commonwealth’s technical consultant completed an analysis demonstrating that state and federal policies now in place, or anticipated, have Massachusetts on track toward emissions reductions of 18 percent by 2020. On Earth Day, April 22, 2009, the Secretary announced that hearings would be held around the state to take public comment on a 2020 reduction target between 18 percent and 25 percent. The Secretary also recently released a draft report on this topic: Cost Effective Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Massachusetts: An Analysis of 2020 Potential.
If you have expertise in the area, or just want to show support for clean energy legislation in the state of Massachusetts, please take note of the hearing dates and locations!
Once found in everything from whipped desert topping in a can to sore throat spray, CFCs were eventually found to react with protective layer of our atmosphere which blocks much of the sun’s harmful rays. They were eventually replaced with related compounds, HCFCs and HFCs. Although the substitutes were not harmful to the ozone layer, like the CFCs before them they have significant global warming potential.
Chemical
GWP
ODP
Life (yr)
CO2
1
0
>10,000
R12 (CFC)
8100
1
100
R22 (HCFC)
1800
0.06
12
R134a (HCFC)
1300
0
14
H2O
N/A
0
N/A
Two weeks ago Canada, Mexico and the United States put forth a proposal to include these ‘Class II’ ozone depleting substances in the Montreal Protocol and phase-out their use. The proposed replacements are hydrocarbons, but their flammability complicates their use as general purpose substitutes, though these problems are not insurmountable. The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, an industry association of HCFC/HFC producers and users, has some interesting background on the trade-offs relating to refrigerant selection, although they clearly have a vested interest in the matter.
There is another surprising alternative to these refrigerants, without resorting to the toxic ammonia of yore. If you glanced at the table above, you likely believed that the last entry was included for comparison. It was, but it turns out that water can also be used a refrigerant. Two years ago The Barr Foundation and the Cambridge Energy Alliance put forth an innocentive for a more efficient air conditioner. The winning submission was for a water-based system. A diagram of the novel solution is available on the InnoCentive blog.
Enjoy a great day of climate workshops, presentations, green vendors, youth displays, and climate related activities. Film a public service announcement. Create a sustainability message at the YouTube booth. Take workshops about green architecture, eating sustainably, futuristic carbon-free energy and many more. All who register (online) will be entered into a drawing for door prizes including iPods, gift certificates, and more.
An afternoon networking session will give Summit attendees to become part of Youth CAN’s Massachusetts Education for Sustainability Campaign aimed at requiring education for sustainability at the secondary level.
Event is free, including breakfast and lunch. Register online as soon as possible to obtain a slot in the workshop of your choice. More information.
Looking past the exciting technical, legislative and community advancements made to address climate change over the last few years, lies the reality of whether we as a society will make the necessary changes in energy use, lifestyle choices and investment decisions in time to avoid the most catastrophic global warming scenarios.
In last weekend’s New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman examined the question that could fatally delay the steps necessary to reduce the impact of climate change. It’s the question that many of the people running our government and global corporations are now pondering, “Is it good for business?”
Even when people accept the reality of climate change, there is some legitimate debate on how fast and how hard the truly negative effects of global warming will visit us. So Krugman quickly takes the argument past the philosophical diatribe conducted by climate deniers and examines first how business plans for any other crisis. He identifies the best and worse case economic effects on GDP if we make drastic cuts in CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the very worst that could happen is a 3% drop in GDP that would likely soon be made up through the manufacture and marketing of the technical solutions and products necessary to live in a low-carbon emissions world.
Krugman then makes an attempt to predict the impact on the world economy if the effects of global warming produce the disastrous changes in climate and weather patterns that scientists predict will come true by the middle of the century. Suffice to say, a 3% decline in GDP would be the least of our troubles.
Like me, it might take you a couple of days to get through the article and ponder the consequences of Krugman’s predictions. It’s well worth your time-both for how well it shines a light on the decision-making processes of our legislative and business leaders, and because the facts may come in handy for debating colleagues who believe ‘the business of America is business’.
On June 3rd, a panel of experts was convened at the Cambridge Public Library to discuss the federal climate policies being proposed at that time to regulate greenhouse gases, and what their impacts might be. The panel was moderated by Rob Garrity, the Executive Director of Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN). The panelists were three climate policy experts: Policy Consultant Sonia Hamel, Professor Michael Dorsey, and Policy Analyst Peter Shattuck.
![Limbo Dancer [DSC_2141] by BoyDisappearing](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/3804804869_d796789caa_m.jpg)
