The time is now to think, act, and share

Here's a sampling of comments about the new Senate climate bill introduced this week As you'll see, they vary from, "This is a horrible bill" to "This bill will do the job."  New Mexico's New Energy Economy group says, "The cap and trade bill introduced this week by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman will provide expanded control and power to polluting industries and Wall Street."  They encourage people to call their Senators in support of the CLEAR Act, the cap and dividend bill that I wrote about in my April 2 post.  According to the Environmental Defense Fund, a call is worth 100 emails.  Click here to find your Senator's phone # and other contact info. If you won't call, email, because an email is worth an infinite amount of doing nothing.  (If you can, do both!).  Repower America, a site affiliated with Al Gore, says "This is the starting gun for the Senate to craft and pass the strongest possible climate and clean energy legislation," and urges us to contact our Senators by email here.  Here's a more in-depth analysis by Climate Progress.  Whatever you decide, please contact your Senators and urge them to pass some sort of energy and climate legislation as soon as possible.  Senators are waiting to see what the public says.  Climate change will not wait while we make up our minds. Let us know what you decide in the comments, and 
Stay cool,
Bonney

If you needed another reason to cut back on fossil fuels,

the recent oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico provided one--or millions of reasons, if you consider all the wildlife that will be killed and all the carbon dioxide that will be released. There are many online petitions you can sign to send a message to President Obama to halt offshore oil drilling proposals in the US.  Here's one from the Sierra Club.  Send me your news and views, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Veterans Getting Behind Clean Energy

If you need any more evidence that climate change is real and we need to take action, check out this link:  National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.  This report, directed by 11 retired US military admirals and generals, says "The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability."  A large majority of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan believe our energy policy undermines national security, and over 70% support changes that promote clean energy and reduce climate change, according to a poll done by Vote Vets, reported on the radio program Living on Earth.  Just as in the first Earth Day, veterans are getting involved in environmental work.  Some have joined conservation programs, are installing solar panels, or have joined Operation Free to strengthen support for national legislation on climate change and green energy.  These veterans have seen lives being lost because of failed US energy policy and want to prevent more loss of life and health due to climate change.  I recently started bicycling home again after my crash in January to reduce my carbon footprint.  I'm sure many of you are taking action to reduce climate change.  Inspire others by sharing what you're doing in the comments! It may seem small, but multiplied many times it adds up. 
Stay cool,
Bonney

More on the CLEAR Act

I hope you'll find ways to celebrate Earth Day in your community.  In Santa Fe, here is a listing of fun possibilities (scroll down; they're on the left).  Feel free to post other events in any community in comments to this post.  Here are some interesting comments on the CLEAR Act, which I posted about last week, and comparisons to other national legislation to reduce greenhouse gases:  What people are saying about the CLEAR Act; World Resources Institute Analysis of the CLEAR Act and Other Climate and Energy Proposals; The Economist Endorses the CLEAR Act.  I'm intrigued with the idea of capping greenhouse gas emissions, auctioning off permits for the right to emit a steadily decreasing amount of carbon dioxide, and dividing up the proceeds among the American public (with 25% going to further emissions reductions and to help those most affected adjust to the disruptions of climate change). What do you think?  I'm going to start putting these blog posts on the Green Line, the Santa Fe New Mexican's green living website, as well as here.  If you know of other places on the web I can post, let me know, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Block the Dirty Air Act

President Obama last May proposed improving gas mileage standards for cars and decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions.  The EPA rule that would accomplish this is set to go into effect April 1, but Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska has proposed a bill that would block it.  The Senate could vote within days on her dirty air act.  Please click here to sign a petition urging your Senator to vote no on this act and all legislation that attempts to block or freeze enforcement of Clean Air Act limits on greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change. According to Environment New Mexico, the EPA rule would save twice as much oil as we import from the Persian Gulf in a year and reduce global warming pollution by 900 million metric tons, the amount emitted by 194 coal-burning power plants.  Next week:  a video from vets urging passage of clean energy climate legislation.  Let me know your thoughts and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Alternatives to nuclear power for slowing climate change

Despite a big push for nuclear power in the US and elsewhere as an answer to the woes of climate change, there remain serious issues that make it a solution of last resort, unless and until these issues can be addressed.  The reason nuclear is brought up is that wind and solar, though very good potential sources of energy, have the problem of being intermittent, and nuclear power plants have almost continuous operation with no greenhouse gas emissions.  The current electric power system requires about 35-40% of the power, termed baseload, to be provided by a steadily available source of energy, mostly burning coal in the US.  This book and website, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, outlines how to reduce greenhouse gases and provide baseload without the use of nuclear energy.

The US can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gases, not to mention energy costs, from conservation measures.  Geothermal energy, from hot rock and water below the Earth's surface, is a source of steady power, has a long track record, doesn't generate greenhouse gases, and is being rapidly developed.  It's also becoming more economical with tax incentives and stimulus money.  Although geothermal plants have a high up-front cost, the cost of energy generated from them is less than for coal, as outlined in this Scientific American piece.  Other potential solutions to the problem of solar and wind being intermittent include using hydrogen fuel cells to store the energy these sources generate, and pumping water uphill when solar and wind are available and generating power by sending it downhill when they aren't.

Nuclear power still has all the issues that it had in the 1970's and early 1980's:  no long-term solution to the problem of waste, very large cost of building plants, and safety issues with operating the plants and  mining uranium.  Also, though nuclear plants don't generate CO2 during operation, mining and processing uranium with current methods does generate greenhouse gases.  Some sources point to fast neutron reactors, which potentially solve the problem of waste by producing more fuel from depleted fuel, as the wave of the future.  However this article points to serious problems with these reactors which have resulted in the closure of most of them since their introduction in the 1950's.

With the track record of geothermal, new methods of storing energy from solar and wind, conservation, and new sources of energy being developed, I think we should be very cautious about pursuing a technology which has the potential to release significant amounts of radioactivity for millenia.  What do you think?
Stay cool,
Bonney

Do We Need Nuclear Power to Reduce Climate Change?

In researching this question, I ran across an interesting website, ProCon.org.  Their goal is to "provide resources for critical thinking and to educate without bias. We do not express opinions on our research projects."  On this issue, at least, I think they've succeeded. Here's their piece, "Is expanding nuclear energy production necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?" Let me know what you think, and next week, I'll let you know what I think!
Stay cool,
Bonney

Here's the comments I submitted to the Environmental Improvement Board regarding proposed regulation of greenhouse gases.  You can submit comments through the end of the hearing on Monday, or attend the hearing and present your comments in person.  See last week's blog post for details.

Re: Docket number EIB  08-19 (R)

I have read the proposed regulations and support the proposal to set a science based cap on greenhouse gas emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. As a former Environment Department employee, I find the proposed regulations to be fair and enforceable. Setting these regulations will provide a more predictable environment for business than the current lack of regulation in which we are left to wonder what form regulation will take. As a scientist and writer studying climate change for the last year and a half, I've concluded, along with a large majority of scientists studying the issue, that climate change is one of the most severe environmental problems facing the species of planet Earth, including humans.

New Mexico has the chance to join California and Massachusetts in passing regulations that create a favorable environment for investment in renewable energy, spurring a green economic recovery, and to to have a large influence on what form Federal regulations will take. I encourage the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations. As reported by Ceres, a national network of investors and public interest groups, the world's largest investors released a statement in January 2010 calling on governments to adopt climate change policy that will create a stable investment environment. "Given that Copenhagen was a missed opportunity to create one fully functional international carbon market, it is more important than ever that individual governments implement regional and domestic policy change to stimulate the creation of a low carbon economy,” said Peter Dunsombe, chairman of the IIGCC, a network of European investors.

I call on the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations.

Speak Out for a Greenhouse Gas Cap in New Mexico

New Energy Economy, a Santa Fe-based nonprofit that sees New Mexico's unique opportunity to shape climate change policy in the US, has partnered with the NM Law Center, an nonprofit with a long history of legal action protecting New Mexico's environment and people, to petition the Environmental Improvement Board to reduce greenhouse gases in the state. We are ranked 2nd in the nation for solar potential and 12th for wind.  Investors are calling on governments to regulate greenhouse gases and energy efficiency to create a stable environment for low-carbon energy investments.  The EIB will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 1, 2010 beginning at 10 a.m. at the State Personnel Office Auditorium, Willie Ortiz Building, 2600 Cerrillos Rd. in Santa Fe on these proposed regulations (Note this is a CHANGE of location).  There are three ways you can make your voice heard:  Go to the public hearing and speak in favor of these regulations, which will apply to any source emitting more than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year;  submit a written comment by the end of the hearing (see the fifth paragraph of this notice); or sign the New Energy Economy's petition in favor of the new regs.  There are currently no national caps on greenhouse gases, although federal regulations require sources emitting over 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases to report their emissions.  See this post on federal legislation.  We need to take every reasonable action on every possible front to reduce greenhouse gases in light of the seriousness of climate change.  Thanks for all your actions!  Share them here, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Sustainable Cooking and Junk Mail Follow-up

If you haven't been to the actual Carbonless Copy blog, but have just been reading posts in your inbox, go there (www.carbonlesscopy.blogspot.com) to see a comment on last week's post on stopping junk mail.  A reader posted a link to the Direct Mail Association's free Mail Preference Service.  Following the directions there has cut down on her junk mail significantly.  Try it and let us know how it works for you! 

Brighter Planet, a group from Middlebury, Vermont that helps people mitigate their environmental footprint, recently published a guide to Mastering the Art of Sustainable Cooking.  Inspired by Julie Powell's book and the movie Julie and Julia, the guide shares information and recipes from hundreds of contributors to help us lighten our "foodprint." According to the guide, "The average American is responsible for about 28.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year, of which 20 percent, or 6.1 tons, is related to food. That’s greater than the impact of all their driving and flying habits combined. This might be surprising, given that public discussions of carbon emissions focus heavily on transportation while discussions about the impacts of food are typically centered around non-climate issues. But what it means is that individually and collectively, there is huge opportunity to reduce our climate impact by changing how we eat."  Take a look, share by posting a comment, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Don't be fooled by deniers

Not one, but two opinion pieces in the Santa Fe New Mexican last Sunday are full of falsehoods and misleading statements about climate change. I will address these fully in response to the New Mexican, which I'll either excerpt or provide a link to on this blog, but in the meantime you can find facts and links to more information to counter most of the spurious claims in the New Mexican pieces in this piece by Scientific American. Remember, 97% of US climate scientists, the scientists who actually study this subject, agree that global warming is real and that it's caused by humans. Our National Academy of Sciences under George W. Bush, along with the academies of science of 10 other nations, agreed that the evidence for climate change and humans' role in it was strong enough to warrant fast action by governments. Update: The US National Academy of Sciences, along with the Academies of Science of 12 other industrialized and emerging nations, signed a statement in June 2009 including the following quotes: "Climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated,""The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," and "Limiting global warming to 2°C would require a very rapid worldwide implementation of all currently available low carbon technologies. The G8+5 should lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon world economy." When we are faced with such great consequences and quite substantial evidence, do you think we should wait until the consequences are so dire that they can't be denied? The people who live on various islands and in the polar reaches, not to mention many species of plants and animals, are already facing dire consequences. By the time the consequences are in the faces of the rest of us, because the ocean and the natural world absorbs CO2 and heat and delays these consequences, scientists tell us it will probably be too late to avoid a world far different from the one that civilization evolved in. Do we really want to let a minority of vocal deniers, some of whom have been paid by oil companies to delay government action, confuse us into losing our chance to save ourselves and thousands of other species? Would you rather prepare for a catastrophe that might not happen, or not prepare for a catastrophe that is actually already happening, but not yet to most of us?

Tell Senate to Pass a Strong Climate Bill

As you may know, the US House of Representatives passed a climate bill in June, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). We've been nagging our Senators meanwhile to do likewise, and it's time to nag them again. Click here to find your Senator and call, write, or email urging them to pass the strongest climate legislation possible. Until both houses pass a bill and the President signs it, there can be little progress on an international treaty, which is why world leaders delayed expectations this week for a strong new treaty to reduce global warming to come out of the Copenhagen talks. Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer introduced a climate bill on Sept. 30 that we should support. It needs strengthening, as lucidly outlined by Margie Alt of the Huffington Post blog site. Alt points out that we could achieve a 26% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 just by investing in energy efficiency, which costs less than we're spending on energy now! We need to do more than this, and there are lots of options other than turning to nuclear energy, which is very expensive and creates waste that's radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Nuclear energy and offshore oil drilling are both being discussed in the Senate. Drilling for oil and burning coal cause global warming, they don't solve it, although sequestering CO2 from fossil fuels is an interim solution. Call or write your Senators now to urge them to pass the strongest climate legislation possible without relying on nuclear or coal. If you're traveling for Thanksgiving, have safe travels and offset your travel with the programs at the very bottom of this page! I'll post again in 2 weeks.
Stay cool,
Bonney

International Day of Climate Action October 24

"As far as we can tell, you'll be part of the single most widespread day of political action about any issue that our planet has ever seen," if you join the nearest 350.org action. So says Bill McKibben, the influential environmentalist and writer who started the 350 campaign, and with good reason. The International Day of Climate Action and 350.org broadcast the message that we have to limit CO2 (carbon dioxide) to 350 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere in order to maintain the planet close to the way it's been as civilization has evolved. This is a stiff challenge, as CO2 levels are currently at 390 ppm. However, there will be over 4,000 events in over 175 countries October 24 to bring the message to world leaders that we want a strong new treaty to limit climate change when they gather in Copenhagen in December. Click on this link and scroll down to see some great photos of the actions that are already happening around the world: 350.org. Also follow that link to join an action in your community.

In Santa Fe, meet at the Center for Contemporary Art, 1050 Old Pecos Trail, at 1 p.m. (noon if you want to volunteer) for a human 350 postcard photo, march to the Roundhouse and rally. Bring signs that say 350, ride your bike or the bus as far as you can, and wear green or blue. Click here for more info. See you there!

I'll continue countering myths next week.

Stay cool,
Bonney

Solar Fiesta This Weekend, Go Green Action Tips

This weekend, Sept. 26-27, 2009, the NM Solar Energy Association holds their Solar Fiesta! 10 am-5 pm each day at Highland High School in Albuquerque, you can learn everything about solar energy, from how to cook in a solar oven to how to have a full-scale photovoltaic system installed on your house. A photovoltaic system will convert the sun's energy to electricity for you to use! Photovoltaic systems and solar heating and hot water systems also qualify you for significant state and federal tax credits. Free workshops at 9 each morning teach you how to make your home more comfortable and lower your energy bills while lowering your contribution to global warming. Find out more by clicking here.

The NM Environment Department hosts Go Green Action Tips, a series of audio clips covering a wide range of topics, including water pollution prevention, limiting your mercury exposure, and a Green Vehicle Guide. Did you know that you shouldn't dispose of fluorescent light bulbs in the trash? They can be brought to the Buckman Road Recycling and Transfer Station for recycling seven days a week, 8 am to 5 p.m., free for Santa Fe County residents. Or save them for your local household hazardous waste collection day. Each bulb has a small amount of mercury in it, and this mercury is released to the environment if the bulbs are disposed of in the trash. The mercury from the large number of compact fluorescent light bulbs now in use could be a significant threat to the environment. However, the amount of mercury released from burning coal for electricity to power the same number of incandescent light bulbs would be six times as great, and the amount of electricity used would be four times as great, according to Progress Energy, a company that owns two electric utilities. Since 57% of our electricity comes from coal, the mercury savings from using fluorescent bulbs are clearly significant.
Send me your ideas and questions about reducing our carbon footprint, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

I've got two interesting things to share with you today. One of them is actually kind of fun! It's a campaign called So Much To Save. Click here to take at least one of five easy actions to reduce your impact on the planet, and get a free download of the So Much to Save album featuring Dave Matthews Band! Action #4 specifically addresses climate change. When you click on "Review Companies," it lets you download a pocket guide that rates companies on how well they're reducing climate change compared to their competitors. You can carry it with you to help you decide what companies to support for everything from household cleaners to banking. The pocket guide is compiled by ClimateCounts.org, a site you might want to check for more detailed info on what companies are doing about global warming.

You also might want to read an article from the online version of Der Spiegel, one of Europe's largest weekly news magazines. Click here to read Spiegel's interview of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a world famous physicist, climate researcher, professor, and the German government's top adviser on climate. Schellnhuber says that even Germany's targets for CO2 reduction aren't enough, and tells how even greater reductions can be achieved. In response to the interviewer's question of whether he's an idealist, he says: "The WBGU is not political; we merely advise the government and present our studies and findings to the public. Our budget has nothing to do with utopias but rather with the physical conditions under which we can prevent our civilization from crumbling." It's interesting to read articles from Europe, where there's really not much debate on climate change, except how to reduce it. Remember, humanity has come through many challenges; let's keep each other informed and encouraged to take action to meet this one. Send me your thoughts and actions by commenting below, and

Stay cool,

Bonney

Don't let them forget

Sorry about my 2-week hiatus! I thought I'd be able to post before my vacation, but no. We took the train as we have many times, and it's a great way to travel.

We need to remind our Congressional representatives and Senators that as important as health care is, they can't forget about the critical American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES for short). ACES, the first national bill that would curb global warming, passed the House on June 26, 2009. Now we need the Senate to pass it. (Obama will sign it if it passes.) The bill needs strengthening, but there's a lot of pressure on the Senate to weaken it further. Please, click here to find your Senators and either attend a town hall meeting or contact them directly to pass as strong a version of ACES as possible. Or, click here to send an email.

The fossil fuel industry is throwing a lot of money and influence into opposing this bill. The idea isn't to eliminate the use of fossil fuels anytime soon--we don't have enough alternatives developed yet. It's to develop incentives for reducing our output of greenhouse gases and develop alternative energy sources that would also provide jobs so that we can fight global warming, which threatens to make all our other problems seem insignificant. Serious effects are already being felt, and the consequences of business as usual would be dire for the human species as well as many others. Because of delays that are built into Earth's climate system, if we wait to act until the most serious consequences arrive, it will be too late to reverse them. We need to act now to prevent the worst consequences of global warming from happening. Let me know what you're doing to reduce global warming!
Stay cool,
Bonney

Is "Cash for Clunkers" Good for the Environment?

There's been a lot of publicity about the cash for clunkers program - the government program that pays you to trade in an older vehicle getting less than 18 mpg for a new one that gets at least 22 mpg. But does the program really reduce global warming? The answer is: a very small amount. The problem isn't that the concept is bad, it just doesn't go far enough. But it still makes sense for most individuals to get rid of an old gas-guzzling clunker for a vehicle that getssignificantly more miles to the gallon.

Making a new car produces greenhouse gases, of course. If you trade in a clunker getting 18 mpg for a new car getting 22 mpg, it would take about 5 1/2 years of average driving to save the amount of greenhouse gases that went into manufacturing the new car, according to the dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, William Chameides, quoted on NPR here. After that, you would be reducing your carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, Chameides says (trucks usually have more material in them and more greenhouse gases are produced in their manufacture). With the median age of cars on the road in the US older than ever at 9.4 years, and some of the new cars purchased getting more than 22 mpg, the net result is positive. However, the Associated Press calculated that the greenhouse gas savings from this year's cash to clunkers program would reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by only a few hundredths of a percent, assuming 500,000 to 750,000 of the 260 million vehicles on the road in the US are traded in.

If you traded in a 20-mpg car for a 50 mpg hybrid, however, you'd make up for the greenhouse gases produced in manufacture in 20 months, according to Gil Friend of ClimateBiz. The greater the difference between the fuel economy of the old car and the fuel economy of the new car, the greater the savings in greenhouse gases. The longer you keep your new car the better for the environment, until there are newer cars whose efficiency is so great that it makes sense to trade in again. The savings with cash to clunkers is not as great as it could be - the original legislation required new cars purchased to meet stricter mileage standards to qualify - but it's a small step in the right direction. And it definitely makes sense for individuals to junk gas guzzlers and buy the most efficient vehicle they can, with or without a government program.
What's in your garage?
Stay cool,
Bonney