Stop the Do Nothing on Climate bills!

Hi - I've been taking a break to do some other writing, but I had to let you know about this. Senator John Barrasso (does Barrasso make anyone else think of embarrassment?) of Wyoming has introduced a bill that would prevent ANYONE in the US from doing ANYTHING about climate change. OK, not quite, but close. It would prevent any Federal agency including the EPA (um, that's their job) from doing anything to reduce the US's contribution to climate change. Yeah, I know, we shouldn't even have to read about stuff like this, but it's happening. So please go here and sign a letter to your members of Congress to oppose bills that are breaking out like a case of hives all over the Capitol to gut the Clean Air Act and repeal the EPA's scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to human health.
And stay cool! (No problem with that in most of the US at the moment)
Bonney

Call Your Senators If You Haven't Already

Despite conflicting opinions in the blogosphere on the merits of the American Power Act (quite a macho bill title--are they compensating for something?), it does seem clear that it's time to pass climate legislation.  If Congress turns more Republican after the fall elections, and most pundits think it will, the chances of passing decent legislation shrink dramatically.  Here, on Grist, is another good discussion of the American Power Act and why it's an improvement over the Clean Air Act alone.  (Warning:  Fake graphic "gutting" photo.)  I haven't seen a good discussion of why the APA is either an improvement over the CLEAR Act or just more likely to get passed (I asked that question today in a comment here on the Grist post).  So my recommended strategy is still to call your Senators (find their numbers here) and urge them to pass the strongest climate legislation possible as quickly as possible.  You might also want to mention that you don't think big government subsidies for nuclear power are a good idea. New Mexico's Senator Jeff Bingaman in particular needs pressure, since he's been lobbying for passage of an energy bill without strong climate provisions.  Let us know your thoughts and what happens, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

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

Emergency Action Alert--Please call Senators today

Please go to the Environmental Defense Fund's link here for details.  While I don't like this bill as well as the CLEAR bill (see my posts on the CLEAR bill  here and here), I think any bill we can get passed this year that reduces CO2 as much as possible by 2018 is much better than no bill, and it sounds like there is a need for action today.  So I'm going to tell my Senators just that.  Please call yours, too! 
Thanks, 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

The CLEAR Act

In December, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the CLEAR Act, another promising bill to reduce climate change.  CLEAR stands for Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal. Its approach is called cap-and-dividend.  Under this bill:

• the Department of Energy would auction carbon shares (1 share = a permit to emit a ton of CO2), to U.S. companies that import and produce fossil fuels
• 75% of the auction proceeds would be divided evenly among U.S. consumers each month
• 25% would go to a fund (the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund) to pay for additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low‐carbon energy investment, climate change adaptation, and regional economic adjustments
• The number of permits sold each year would decrease to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050 
• The permit price would be determined by bidding on permits but regulated to be within a certain range to reduce the economic damage caused by too much price volatility 
• Only producers and importers would be required to purchase permits and allowed to bid

The apparent advantages of this bill, pointed out by Mike Sandler at the Huffington Post, are that 100% of permits are auctioned, no offsets are allowed (offsets let an emitter buy shares in a project that reduces CO2 rather than reducing the emitter's CO2 production), and no one but producers and importers can bid on permits (no speculators, investment firms, etc.). In other bills, such as ACES (Waxman-Markey, which passed the House last year), many permits were given away for free, offsets were allowed, and third parties could buy and sell permits.

What do you think of this bill?  Post your comments, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Vets and others speak out on climate legislation

Here's the promised video by VoteVets.org outlining the link between oil dependence and war, which John  Kerry put up on the Huffington Post blog and commented on.  Here's an outline of new climate and energy legislation introduced by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman to mirror the legislation passed by the House last June. And here's an open letter by a Grist blogger David Roberts to these Senators on what sounds like a sensible approach to getting this climate legislation passed.  Please let your Senators know what you think here.  I'll be gone next week visiting my extended family (yes, I bought offsets).  Let us know what you think of these pieces, and what you think we should be doing to fight climate change, 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

MailStopper Didn't

I promised an update on Tonic MailStopper, which I signed up for in May 2009. This is a service which claimed to stop up to 90% of your junk mail in 90 days. Unfortunately, I haven't noticed a dramatic decrease in the amount of junk mail I get. However, there are a couple of caveats. The biggest one was stated by the company itself when it sent customers an email in November '09: "We finally looked in the mirror and admitted to ourselves that we can’t change the junk mail industry." MailStopper has changed their name to Precycle and their service to a package of "two energy efficient light bulbs, a reusable bag and a junk mail reduction product that eliminates only what we can guarantee will be eliminated." There are also no recurring charges unless you move. Precycle costs $43 total.

The other caveats, at least with the old system, are that you had to go onto MailStopper's web site to identify some of the junk mail that you didn't want in order for them to stop it. They did stop some advertising mail automatically, and did most of the difficult work for you. I'm sure I could have done more to reduce junk mail by going into my account and requesting specific places not send me mail. Another caveat: we get a lot of solicitations for charitable donations, which, depending on how charitable you're feeling, you might or might not classify as junk mail. Again, I could reduce these by going into my account and specifying which ones I didn't want mail from. But I didn't. A final caveat: I didn't quantify how much junk mail I got before or after paying for the service, so I'm just going by my memory, and memories are far from perfect.

If you're so inclined, I encourage you to try Precycle, or 41 pounds, which charges $41 for 5 years, or ecocycle if you want to do it yourself for free. I'd be interested to know how well any of these work for you. As always, I'm also interested in your ideas and practices for reducing our contributions to global warming. Thanks, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Some good news, and some fun

Here's some good news and fun to counteract the rather disappointing news coming out of Copenhagen so far: last week, after years of inaction, the EPA finally determined that greenhouse gas emissions, which cause climate change, endanger human health and welfare. The move is necessary to allow EPA regulation of global warming pollutants. At the same time, the EPA also proposed regulation of the largest sources of carbon emissions. EPA's actions should prod Congress to pass laws that cap greenhouse gases. A climate change bill has passed the House of Representatives, but a similar bill has languished in the Senate while health-care reform is debated. So, before you go full swing into Christmas, solstice, or Kwanzaa (or right after Hanukkah's over), please thank the EPA for these actions by clicking here. Please change the message so that it says what you want it to. And email your members of Congress to let them know you still support strong climate action despite all the tactics of the global warming deniers and those who are fighting to preserve the status quo. There is an excellent sample letter here, which can be sent to your Senators and representatives with the click of a mouse, that states clearly why the fuss over the stolen climate emails doesn't change the facts of global warming or their seriousness. Again, please change to suit your needs.

If you have a slightly sick sense of humor like I do (and don't object to violence to out-of-season vegetables), check out this funny video from Green Thing.

The New Mexican says they're deciding when to print my piece, so look for it this Sunday or the next and I'll link to it when it's published.

Resolve to do all you can to fight climate change in 2010. In the meantime, take the above actions, then relax and enjoy the rest of your holidays. I'll post again in the new year.
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?

Should You Buy Carbon Offsets?

After encouraging you to offset your Thanksgiving travel by using one of the offset programs at the bottom of the homepage, I did more research. Carbon offsets, which are shares of projects you can buy that cancel out your greenhouse gas emissions for various activities, are controversial. Responsible Travel, one of the first travel companies to give travelers the option of buying offsets, canceled their program in October because they believe that offsets do more to soothe consciences than reduce CO2 output. We do need to ask ourselves whether we're buying offsets to assuage a guilty conscience, or whether we're using them when we've reduced our carbon footprint as much as we can. If you just have to take a flight, buying an offset will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions if the offset is real. Here's where things get dicey. Michael Wara, a professor at Stanford Law School and former climate scientist, says "we don't know" how many offset projects really reduce CO2 emissions. The hardest part is knowing whether a project would have been done without offsets helping to pay for it. My take is that it's very unlikely that all offset programs would have been done without offset money, so you are paying for some greenhouse gas reduction. Since it's an imperfect mechanism, it's not a great conscience-soother, so don't use it for that. With these cautions in mind, I've changed the links at the bottom of this page to only include carbon offset programs that serve individuals and are retailers for the Climate Action Reserve, which has strict requirements that projects are real, permanent, and additional, and includes independent verification. I encourage you to reduce your carbon footprint as much as you can (see the list of "10 Things" below), look at these sites, and then offset your holiday travel and other activities as much as you see fit. Going through the process will also make each of us more aware of how much greenhouse gas our different activities produce. Please share any thoughts, facts, or questions you have about offsets, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

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

We can't be the problem, right? Wrong.

One final myth to discuss in this series (I'm always happy to address others at your request): Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources, so they can't be important.

Fact: While it's true that natural sources give off much more CO2 than humans, plants and the oceans are currently absorbing even more CO2 than they give off. Click here for more on this. It's humans' use of fossil fuels that have thrown CO2 levels off balance, since fossil fuels have been buried for hundreds of millions of years and their carbon has been out of circulation. Right now, nature is saving us from more extreme climate change than we're currently experiencing, because the oceans and plants are absorbing excess CO2. However, we're still emitting CO2 faster than natural sources can absorb it, increasing the greenhouse effect and causing climate change.

I know there are people reading this blog! (Don't worry, I don't know who you are unless you've told me, and I certainly won't share your personal info.) But all of us reading would love to hear from you--your questions, your thoughts, your ideas about climate change and what we can do about it. Thanks so much for all your support!
Stay cool,
Bonney

A Great Day, and More Work To Do

Thanks to all those who participated in the planet's most widespread day of political action ever- with over 5,200 events in 181 countries! There was scant to no mainstream media coverage of Santa Fe's action involving 350 people, but there was a huge amount of coverage worldwide, including front-page stories in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune and top stories on Google News and CNN World online. Thanks to Barbara Wold for coverage on her blog Democracy for New Mexico. Organizers posted photos to 350.org from Papua New Guinea to New Jersey, Botswana to Brooklyn, Antarctica to China. Go see them--they're amazing and inspiring! And if you haven't contacted your Senators to demand the strongest climate legislation they can deliver, click here to do that. See my Aug. 28 post for more info.

Now, back to refuting myths, which I started in my Oct. 16 post. Myth #2: CO2 is not a major cause of climate change. Ads on TV and sites on the Internet proclaim this myth. But that's just what it is, a myth.

Fact: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (an international group of climate scientists established by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization), "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC and many other sources. If you're worried about the phrase "very likely," realize that the IPCC has a reputation for being conservative, because it can only report what all its many scientist from all over the world agree on.

Fact: The US National Academy of Sciences along with 10 other national science academies proclaimed in 2005 that the evidence for human-caused global warming is strong enough for governments to take rapid action.

Fact: 97% of US climate scientists surveyed agree that human activity has been a significant factor in rising average global temperatures.
Send us your thoughts and
Stay cool,
Bonney