US to announce new fuel emissions standards

You knew it was coming. As early as Tuesday this week, according to the New York Times, President Obama is going to announce new national standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles. I quote items from the article:

• As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
• The president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states [including Maryland -s] and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
• Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single mileage rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard. Under that new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
• The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.

Next up: cap-and-trade.

Yes we can afford to curb climate change

Today's editorial by Paul Krugman on cap-and trade is very well written and exposes the fallacious arguments on both sides of the cap-and-trade argument. On the left, you have greenies saying that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will involve no pain on the part of consumer. On the right you have arguments that the consumer's pocketbook will catch on fire. Neither is true. Though I don't always agree with Krugman (not that my opinion matters much; he has a Nobel and I have a blog) I do think we occupy a similar chasm; we are not joiners. People do not come to us for support but the media likes to ask us for our opinions. I was thinking about this in my own case and wondering if I could find a better way to be part of a movement but I think my drive for independent thinking continually keeps me on the outside.

Anyway, Krugman argues that the costs of cap-and-trade will be borne by anyone who uses fossil fuels that are regulated. This is only common sense. It is also common sense that these costs would not be more than the price of carbon per ton. He also explains how these costs will be phased in over time, and how the price pressures might encourage investment in substitutions. None of this is new and we have talked about it since forever. But he did say the following novel thing (emphasis mine):

To put it another way, a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.

I like it when people make me think.

US "ready to lead" on climate change

From the New York Times online:

WASHINGTON — After eight years largely on the sidelines of the international policy debate on climate change, the United States is prepared to lead negotiations toward a new global warming treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

“The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad,” Mrs. Clinton told delegates from 16 countries at a State Department conference on energy and climate. “We are back in the game.”

The meeting in Washington was the first of three planned sessions among the participating countries, who together account for roughly 75 percent of emissions of the gases blamed for the heating of the planet. Officials said the conference, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, was intended to supplement, not replace, broader talks that begin in Copenhagen in December to write a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

It's about time.

Climate change news: API and cronies lied

It's hard to keep up with climate change news, these days, and I think that's a good thing. It used to be that you could write a blog about climate change and comfortably cover the main points on many fronts; we are at a critical mass. I feel like the strength of Local Warming is the focus on how individuals can save energy, money and greenhouse gases. I have also volunteered to help a local church with an energy audit so that I can become better versed in this topic to share with many of you who run commercial/institutional facilities.

But I still love the news. I especially love reading about climate news on the front page of the New York Times website:

First, NYT reports that a document filed in a lawsuit has produced "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer," an internal document written for the American Petroleum Institute and its cronies in the Global Climate Coalition. This document shows that in 1995, GCC was fully aware that humans were increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that would cause global climate change, though they debated if such climate change was already occurring. The report states unequivocally that:

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

Why does this matter? It matters because people who stood to make a profit from the consumption of fossil fuels lied to the public and to regulators about the risks from greenhouse gases. It also diminishes the standing that groups like API and the GCC have now that allow skeptics and deniers to continue to prevent us from acting on our own behalf.

Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.

In other words, the obstruction of action in regards to climate change was a jaded ploy to make money at the expense of the public and the health of the planet, and it continues today. Let's change this sooner rather than later.

Carbonless energy for Pepco, BGE <$ than coal

If you use BGE or Pepco, CleanCurrents is offering "a new carbon neutral electricity option for people in the Chesapeake region. C-Green combines standard electricity from the Mid Atlantic grid (the PJM grid) with Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs” or “green tags”) from wind farms situated across the United States, bundled together and supplied by Washington Gas Energy Services, a licensed retail energy supplier in MD and DC. This bundled product helps fight global warming by offsetting the carbon emissions from your electricity use with clean, renewable wind power." According to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, this is cheaper than coal power in the region.

If you live in Montgomery County you can get this in addition to the cheap, clean power:

SPECIAL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD RESIDENTS

The Montgomery County Clean Energy Rewards Program gives county residents a reward of a 1/2 cent per kWh (.5¢ or $.005) for up to 20,000 kWh of clean energy purchased. Clean Currents was a founding member of the program with RECs and C-Green.

More Catholics think global warming manmade

The elections are over, but FiveThirtyEight.com is still going strong. A recent post by Nate Silver called The Pope and the Planet caught my eye: "The institution of the Catholic Church is often unpopular with liberals for its position on issues like family planning, but it can also be a force for social progress. In particular, the first thing I noticed from this Gallup survey on attitudes toward global warming is that the percentage of persons who think global warming is manmade appears to be much higher in predominately Catholic nations than in Protestant ones...In majority-Catholic nations, on average, 65 percent of adults believe that global warming is manmade, versus 47 percent in Protestant ones (the figure for the United States, which has a Protestant majority, is 49 percent). Countries with an Orthodox majority are somewhere in the middle, as are those where a majority is Christian, but neither Catholic or Protestant theologies predominate. Buddhist countries also seem more inclined toward environmental protection; Islamic ones appear less so." Nate and I both attribute this to the actions of the Pope, who has been extremely outspoken about the need to curb manmade global warming.

Five energy saving products for Earth Day

Happy Earth Day! In celebration I thought I would highlight five products that I have come across that I think could save energy, save money, and save greenhouse gases. These are culled from a much larger list of products. In most cases, I have either tried them myself or know someone who has tried them. I am not a big product promoter and am not making money off of these. But they stand out. I still think most of these products are too expensive for the average consumer, but I am going to run some numbers to see what the payback periods are for them.

1. Earth LED EvoLux bulbs: They turn on quickly like incandescents, and fit in a regular fixture. 13 watts at a 100 watt equivalent. At $80 a piece, these are pretty expensive. Over 10 years at an electricity cost of $0.10/kwh, each one would save you $212.76 including the averted cost of replacement light bulbs. These are the first LED lights for home uses that glow like an incandescent bulb.
2. CREE recessed LED down light: These award-winning lamps put out a solid glow that looks like an incandescent fixture. The intial cost is $130, about $100 more than a standard can light. But over ten years using one bulb 8 hours a day, you will save $196.20 in electricity and bulb replacement savings. The payoff is about 3 years, 3 months if your electricity costs $0.10/kwh.
3. Athalon LED exit light replacement: Replace the incandescent bulbs in your exit lights. They stay on all the time so the savings really add up. They cost about $12.95. One watt versus the 20w standard, on for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and you'll save 166o kilowatts every ten years. You'll also save $160 in electricity in ten years, plus the $18.75 in replacement bulbs minus your original bulb cost of $12.95, for a total of $165.80 . About 9.4 month payback period.
4. ScanGaugeII: Not only can this meter give you real-time mpg feedback (like what you would get on a Prius) to make you change your driving habits, it also can read diagnostic codes for your vehicle. My dad discovered he had a bad O2 sensor, and replaced it himself. He saved the cost of going to a shop, plus the vehicle runs more efficiently. Costs about $159. Estimates on savings vary. I am testing this out with a Boy Scout Venture Crew as part of an energy saving project they are doing, and will let you know.
5. Belkin Remote Control Power Strips: Yes, we know we should use power strips with surge protectors, and we do, but they are difficult to reach. Not any more. Cost- about $50. Savings- I assume you're using a power strip already, so the remote is about convenience. But if you're not, you'll save vampire power from whatever you plug into the strip.

BREAKING: EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger US

From the Environmental Defense Fund:

*** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS ***

EPA formally declares global warming to be a threat to Americans' health and well-being.

In an historic decision moments ago, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a proposed ruling that global warming pollution "endangers" Americans' health and well-being.

Today's action sets the stage for using authority under the Clean Air Act to establish national emission standards for large global warming emitters.

EDF's deputy general counsel Vickie Patton says that with today's announcement, "The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change. EPA's action is a wake up-call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future."

The EPA is now expected to begin developing national emission standards for new motor vehicles and new coal-fired power plants, the nation's two largest sources of global warming pollution.

Today's action comes as Congress prepares to take its own historic steps toward enacting a cap on global warming pollution.

Next week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearings on comprehensive energy and climate legislation and move quickly to a vote on the bill. Chairman Henry Waxman has committed to moving the bill -- the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- out of committee by Memorial Day.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she intends to bring the bill to the House floor this year.

George Will blasted over climate editorials

From Friends of the Earth:

In late February, after George Will published an erroneous and misleading Washington Post column attempting to sow confusion about global warming science, more than 5,000 Friends of the Earth activists contacted the Post's ombudsman and demanded a correction. The paper refused to issue one, but now numerous Washington Post employees -- including some of its news reporters -- are publicly criticizing Will.

In just the last week, reporters Mary Beth Sheridan and Juliet Eilperin called Will out in a news column reporting on recent Arctic ice melts, Post "Weather Gang" writer Andrew Freedman called Will's assertions "misleading,"Post columnist Eugene Robinson criticized Will on national television, and Post cartoonist Tom Toles mocked Will in a sketch. We can only hope Will pays attention to his colleagues and stops lying about the climate crisis.

The right always claims that climate skeptics are libeled and slandered when they attempt to express an unpopular opinion. Certainly people have jumped on George Will. But are they slandering him? Or are they exposing that his writing is ill-informed and misleading?

Obama team changes US tune on climate change

This time around, the U.N. climate talks look quite different. According to MSNBC, the Obama Administration has made some pretty compelling statements.

• Sunday...President Barack Obama's envoy pledged to "make up for lost time" in reaching a global agreement on climate change.
• Todd Stern also praised efforts by countries like China to reign in their carbon emissions, but said global warming "requires a global response" and that rapidly developing economies like China "must join together" with the industrial world to solve the problem.
• "We are very glad to be back. We want to make up for lost time, and we are seized with the urgency of the task before us," Stern said to loud applause from the 2,600 delegates to the U.N. negotiations.
• They clapped again when Stern said the U.S. recognized "our unique responsibility ... as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases," which has created a problem threatening the entire world.
• Stern said no one on his team doubted that climate change is real. "The science is clear, the threat is real, the facts on the ground are outstripping the worst-case scenarios. The cost of inaction or inadequate action are unacceptable," he said — a total change of tone from his predecessors.
• "America itself cannot provide the solution, but there is no solution without America," he said.