global warming

2013: Breakthrough Year On Climate?


My first "local" friend, sweetest lady ever!

According to the Sierra Club, 2013 has the potential to be a breakthrough year on climate, and they are calling on the president to use his full executive authority. The Sierra Club believes Mr. Obama was largely silent on climate change during the presidential campaign, much to the dismay of supporters in the environmental movement. After winning reelection, the president promised to make climate change one of his top three priorities. The president, in an interview for TIME's Person of the Year award, said the economy, immigration, climate change and energy would be at the top of his agenda for the next four years.

Sierra Club wants to see those words translate into action, and will pressure the Obama Administration during the first 100 days of his second term with a series of town halls, rallies, reports and letter-writing events. The Sierra Club states that while Mr. Obama “gets” climate change, a “considerable gap” still exists between words and deeds. Further stating that Mr. Obama should use his State of the Union address in February to "talk very clearly about both the threats and the opportunities posed by climate change and clean energy." In Monday's inaugural address he gave what some say may be the primer version of what is yet to come. 
One of my favorite photos from Nepal, Boy fishing .

There is new political backing for action on global warming in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.
That storm has sparked debates in Congress about coastal infrastructure and the long-term impact of rising sea levels. 

 I would ask, “how much longer can we drag our collective feet on changing our behavior when it comes to climate change?"

Passing a large climate bill during the new Congress would be difficult, given the strong GOP opposition in both chambers. Many Republicans are skeptical that global warming is occurring, while others attribute the trend to non-human factors which leads them to oppose the emissions rules and emphasis on costlier clean-energy technology. While the House is still under GOP control, the Sierra Club argues we should be urging President Obama to take matters into his owns hands; President Obama could bypass Congress by issuing regulations to enhance clean-energy investment and curtail carbon emissions. 
Waterfall that only a year prior was known as a stream.
I wonder how feasible this actually is, but most of all, how likely is it to happen? 

 If we don’t do something in 2013 are we past the point of no return?
I’m counting on the California Leadership to pave the way for sensible climate legislation. I realize that climate change is not a fun topic, but it is one that I have witnessed firsthand while in the Himalayan Mountains of Nepal, leaving NO questions in my mind about the legitimacy of the issue itself.

Photo Credits: Deanna Fernandez

You dirty rat: Global warming's fossil fuel friends

The temperature is a little warm.

The forecast for this early August day called for 111 degrees in Fresno/Clovis, Calif. where I live. That's relatively common in this region, where 40 or more days above 100 is common for summer. But it appears more of the United States is in for similar treatment.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center says July was the hottest month in recorded history.

In fact, its State of the Climate report says, January through July was the warmest first seven months of any year on record for the contiguous United States. The national temperature of 56.4 degrees was 4.3 degrees above the long-term average, with only the Pacific Northwest, which was near average, bucking the trend.

And of course Alaska's a bit cooler. My friend Steve likes to post data on his runs in Anchorage's scenic Kincaid Park. The latest was 55 degrees. Sweltering.

Superheating the atmosphere

This temperature stuff is more than just fodder for oblique discussions of the weather. The ramifications are huge, and most scientists predict dire consequences should the trend not be reversed.


Author and climate activist Bill McKibben spells out the scenario in stark terms. In a piece for Rolling Stone, which has some of the best investigative journalism in the country, he highlights three numbers to watch.

The first is 2 degrees Celsius, which refers to the window the world has before it succumbs to significant effects of climate change. The second is 563 gigatons of carbon dioxide, which refers to the amount of climate warming pollutants that can be released before we hit that two degree threshold.

Carbon dioxide, public enemy

The third, and perhaps most significant McKibben number, is 2,795 gigatons of carbon dioxide. That's the amount of carbon locked up in all the known reserves of oil and coal. Should those reserves be exploited and the fossil fuels burned, we'll be well on the path to universal environmental destruction.

The cost would be astronomical, the devastation unparalleled.

The path to dealing with this appears obvious. Or relatively. Fossil fuels stand as the most costly fuel on the planet. But society would prefer to kick the can to the next generation.

Who's the bad guy?

Pushing fossil fuels

McKibben says it's obvious.The bad guys are coal and oil executives.

"Climate change operates on a geological scale and time frame, but it's not an impersonal force of nature; the more carefully you do the math, the more thoroughly you realize that this is, at bottom, a moral issue; we have met the enemy and they is Shell," he says.

Unfortunately, the oil companies hold the enviable position of having more money than their critics. While BP reported a loss of $2.2 billion for the second quarter of 2012, it's still doing fine. That compares with net profit of $5.7 billion for the same period a year earlier.

The Associated Press reports BP's revenue for the quarter declined 9 percent and the company set aside another $847 million for the Gulf of Mexico oil rig disaster and cleanup, "taking the total provision to just over $38 billion."

Money is the game

Not a problem. BP can afford it. In fact, it's created an ad campaign that portrays the company in such beneficent terms, its past fades to distant-memory status. Says Hamilton Nolan of gawker.com: "Remember how BP's relentless pursuit of profits at the expense of safety caused the Gulf of Mexico to be flooded with oil a little while ago? No. I don't remember that. Do you? Hmm. What I do remember is BP's absolutely awesome Olympic spirit!"



Earnings-wise, Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil fared better with Shell posting second quarter profit of $5.7 billion, down 13 percent from the same period a year earlier, and Exxon showing $8.4 billion, down 22 percent, according to the New York Times. Reporter Clifford Krauss quotes Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson saying, “Despite global economic uncertainty, we continue to invest throughout the business cycle, taking a long-term view of resource development.”

Talk like that drives McKibben nuts. "There's not a more reckless man on the planet," he says of Tillerson. He adds that Tillerson told Wall Street analysts he plans to spend $37 billion on a year on exploration through 2016.

Averting disaster

The problem is that oil companies hold the future of the planet in their hands, and as long as they keep making scads of money, they won't be backing away from extracting, refining and burning as much of their fossil fuel reserves as possible. McKibben says the only way to deal with this is to tax carbon, making alternative energy more economical.

Of course, alternative energy is currently struggling its way to fossil-fuel parity already. But it could use a boost.

In the meantime, McKibben says the best recourse is moral outrage for those who would like to stop this pell-mell push to global warming. Enemy No. 1 is not Jimmy Cagney, nor is it Snidely Whiplash (both personal favorites). It's a bunch of rich executives ruining the globe for a few dollars more.

Biogas industry seeks to clear the regulatory air

Fresno, Calif. and the rest of the San Joaquin Valley share some of the worst air in the United States.

A bootstrap industry, still trying to gain a toehold in the state, can remove tons of those pollutants and produce renewable energy at the same time. The concept would appear to meet the goal of the state's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which seeks to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

So what's the holdup?

Part economics, part regulatory. Five of the top people in the state's biogas industry met recently in Fresno with members of the California Public Utility Commission to explain the difficulties in getting bio-digesters up and running. The meetings were in Fresno City Hall. Each commissioner and his or her staff listened and gave feedback to various groups.

Making the case for biogas

The small but friendly renewables group spelled out all the potential a viable biogas industry could bring. But the group, who represented five companies, also explained the turmoil their operations face breaking into the market in a substantial way. And by and large, the commissioners, who met them one by one, appeared to see the merits of their cause.

The biogas representatives' plan is simple. The Valley is also home to 1,700 dairies, the most productive and largest milk production region in the country. These dairies also produce a huge amount of methane, mostly through cow poop.

Their companies, with the exception of one that uses agricultural waste, take what the cows discard and convert it to energy. However, to do this they need a little help. Because the industry is so new, development and operation costs somewhat exceed current return. The biodigestion process removes pollutants, which could improve the health of millions of people, but that benefit -- at this time -- isn't worth anything to banks. The fact that the industry could divert a huge amount of the state's greenhouse gas and create a renewable resource can't be monetized. And that means the projects don't look good to traditional financiers.

"We need a stable program to launch the industry," says Neil Black, president of California Bioenergy.

Industry could use a hand

There are a lot of details involved with getting a biodigester up and running. Suffice to say that most of them boil down to price per kilowatt hour. Utilities pay something like 8.9 cents, while the standard biodigester coupled to a energy-creating turbine needs something more, like 15 to 17 cents, at least at this early stage.

It's not uncommon for a developing energy source to get regulatory assistance. In the energy business, it's understood that every new resource needs some sort of subsidy to get started and eventually become profitable. Even oil.

Black says there only 11 biodigesters operating in California. He says about that many went out of business, unable to make the economics work.

"We're operating in five different states now, and all are easier than California," says Bob Joblin, who represents AgPower Group. He says he's had a project fully permitted for a year and a half, just waiting on assistance to unravel regulatory red tape.

Nettie Drake of Ag Power Development says she's working on her second digester, but it hasn't been easy. She says her business finds nothing but hurdles.

The cost of clean air

The difficult part is that of air quality. Because there is no viable methodology for trading carbon credits, where one company pays another to offset its pollution, there is no method for companies like Black's or Drake's or Joblin's to leverage those credits.

Congress has failed to pass cap-and-trade, meaning no sales of credits for biodigesters. However, California does show some promise -- but not until next year, when it's due to launch what Peter Weisberg of BioCycle.net says is "the nation’s most comprehensive cap-and-trade program."

Weisberg says digester and composting project developers interested in generating carbon credit revenue "must now turn their attention to the intricacies of the emerging California carbon market."

Timing is key. The group at the CPUC meetings in Fresno says the opportunity for getting their current projects established and successful is limited. Expired permits, missed financing or mounting debt could sour farmers on the concept.

And it's farmers who take the risk.

Renewable energy

These projects could make a big difference. Black says the potential in California for all digesters, including waste water and ag waste is 3 gigawatts of power.

That's a pretty big deal. For example the twin reactors at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo produce about 2.2 gigawatts.

And it would remove greenhouse gases from the worst air in the nation. Fresno and other cities in the Valley are good at getting on lists no city wants any part of. For instance, Fresno has the distinction of having the nation's highest concentrated poverty and a number of Valley cities found their way onto the Top 10 residential foreclosure list over the past few years.

Bye bye brown haze?

The American Lung Association's 2012 State of the Air Report lists primarily Valley cities in its top 10 most polluted. One of the reasons for this airborne nastiness has to do with the region's geographic configuration (basin surrounded by two mountain ranges) its lack of wind and rain and the fact that everything from Los Angeles and the Bay Area migrates east and hangs out.

The biodigester industry is poised to do its part. And there's this: Biogas doesn't operate at the whim of mother nature like wind and solar. Hook it up to the grid and it could even out the highs and lows of other renewable power sources.

Energy Efficiency: The Low-Hanging Fruit That is Sometimes Hard To Pick


U.S. Department of Energy chief Steven Chu and others are fond of calling conservation and efficiency the "low-hanging" fruit of the clean-energy movement. But, as this international report points out, fruit that is ripe for the picking often remains on the tree.

And that's a problem. Energy demand worldwide is expected to increase 40% by 2050, and the projected cost of meeting that increase is $26 trillion. But the incentives for business and consumers to invest in the necessary efficiency measures aren't always in place.

People and businesses invest in assets they can see, feel and touch. As a result, energy-efficiency measures get lost in a myriad of more tangible priorities. "Today, the polices and market structures in place are currently not robust enough to support energy-efficiency scale-up," the 40-page report concludes.

Some of the barriers have been mentioned before: Investing in new products and buildings is often easier than retrofitting existing ones; the entity paying for the upgrades is sometimes not the same one benefiting from the investment; and combining a bunch of little projects is challenging.

Add to those such things as regulatory issues, a lack of international standards and the complexity of consumer behavior and you have a brake on the ability to make the needed changes.

Thus, some recommendations are put forth in the study: create innovative financing mechanisms, increase access to capital, ease regulations and focus attention on the benefits of efficiency are just some of them.

However, it should not be assumed that all energy-efficiency programs are not working. In fact, the European Union lowered consumption 40% between 1990 and 2006, and Japan has slashed use 37% since the 1970s.

The report also shines a spotlight on successful efficiency programs. Japan has the lowest energy consumption per GDP, a decrease sparked by the effects of two oil shocks. Japan, which was importing large amounts of energy, was persuaded to pursue efficiency measures.

The star in Japan's energy policy is its Top Runner Program, which selects certain suppliers and manufacturers as "Top Runners" and then challenges others to exceed those standards. Japan also is testing four "smart cities" that integrate efficiency and renewable energy throughout the entire power chain - from generation to appliances.

And then there is London's RE:FIT program. It uses preselected energy service companies to retrofit government buildings. The public sector finances the improvements and the servicers take on construction and performance risk and guarantee expected savings.

The pilot program retrofitted 42 public buildings and cut power consumption an average of 28%. At that rate, the return on investment is seven years. The program has been spread nationwide, with a $100 million Green Fund spurring investment.

Across the pond, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Environmental Energy Technologies Division in California studied new standards for appliances and calculated consumers would save $240 billion by 2030.

The evidence is clear: energy efficiency pays in the long run. How we get there is the issue.

High School Students Can Compete In Climate Program



The deadline for the first Climate Generations program, a
competition that challenges high school students to connect environmental school work with their daily lives, is fast approaching.



February 1 is the deadline for participation. The Climate Generations competition is a chance for students to gain real-world experience in project-management and leadership by requiring them to design and set in place programs that reduce their school’s carbon footprint.

“The name ’Climate Generation’ says it all,” said California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary D. Nichols. “This is an opportunity for young people who will be living with the effects of climate change to focus their passion and enthusiasm on real-world projects and solutions in their school today. It will also help us identify our new Climate Champions, the leaders who will express the concerns of California’s youth about climate change.”

The Climate Generation Program, an outgrowth of the British Council’s Climate Champions program, is underway in a network of 60 countries. Its goal is to encourage young people to engage climate issues at local, national and international levels.

The program is being launched in California and Minnesota. ARB, the lead agency for implementing AB 32, California’s landmark climate change law, is overseeing the state’s competition.

The California Education and the Environment Initiative, a new curriculum comprised of 85 units teaching select Science and History-Social Science academic standards will be promoted as an important element of the new Climate Generation program.



The new curriculum, the result of a multi-agency education and environmental partnership, was developed to help students discover how science, history and social science relate to individual lives and connect to the world around them, focusing on their relationship to the environment. It was designed to engage students in a way that makes learning relevant and fun.

High schools in California and Minnesota are eligible to participate in the 2010-2011 Climate Generation Program. The classroom projects must benefit the school and relate to one or more of the following topic areas:

* Energy Conservation;
* Renewable Energy;
* Water Conservation;
* Transportation;
* Purchasing;
* Facilities; and/or,
* Awareness/Communication (Outreach).

For more information on the Climate Generation Program go to:
http://www.coolcalifornia.org/article/champion-the-cause.

photo: arcticportal.org

Could Fuel Cells Power The Green Movement In California?



Fuel cells aren't new - electricity aboard the Gemini 5 spacecraft in 1965 came from one - but they aren't so space age anymore.

More businesses and local governments are relying on them to help reduce their carbon footprint, capitalize on renewable fuels and to generate power. At least four systems are in the San Joaquin Valley and, as this Los Angeles Times story notes, they are "popping up" throughout the state.

Bloom Energy, a young Bay area company, has received lots of press lately for its fuel cells. Coca Cola announced this year that it would test fuel Bloom Energy cells powered by biogas at an Odwalla plant in Dinuba, in Tulare County. The five cells could produce almost one-third of the plant's power, and cut its carbon footprint 35%.

Fuel cells also generate power at a 400,000-square-foot cold storage warehouse in Stockton; use methane gas created from a wastewater treatment facility to provide power to the Turlock Irrigation District; and use biogas as an onsite renewable energy source at a regional wastewater plant in Tulare.

The California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative, administered by the Air Resources Board, has information on more projects throughout the state.

It remains to be seen how popular fuel cells become - they can be the size of a vehicle and cost a bundle to install - but, if they work as intended, could make a substantial dent in an entity's carbon footprint and power bills.

The federal government has an ambitious agenda for fuel cell research, appropriating $74 million over three years. "The investments we're making today will help advance fuel cell technology in the United States," U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday. "This is part of a broad effort to create American jobs, reduce carbon pollution, and help ensure the U.S. stays competitive in the growing clean energy economy."

Fuel cells use the chemical energy of hydrogen or other fuels to cleanly and efficiently produce electricity or heat with minimal byproducts, primarily water. They can produce power in large stationary systems such as buildings or for vehicles such as commercial forklifts, buses and automobiles.

Lewis Nelson, public works director in Tulare, says fuel cells are well suited for wastewater treatment plants. They take biogas from anaerobic treatment of wastewater solids or animal manure and generate electricity. In 2010, Tulare is expected to save about $570,000 with the system.

"A treatment plant uses a lot of electricity, and can generally use all the electricity a fuel cell generates internally, saving the cost of purchasing electricity from a utility," Nelson says. "I think that biogas fuel cells are an excellent renewable electricity technology for wastewater treatment plants."

Tulare is currently installing its fourth fuel cell. The city's investment after a $4 million incentive was $3 million, which means it could recoup its costs within five years.


(Photo of Tulare fuel cell by snowdenelectric.com)

UC Merced Study: Higher Greenhouse Gases Could Alter Oceans


UC Merced, the newest University of California campus, is rapidly gaining cred for its research in, among other things, energy and the environment. As evidence, note a just-released study that concludes increased greenhouse gases could make oceans more acidic, and could profoundly affect marine life.

The study concludes that rising greenhouse gases, caused in part by the burning of fossil fuels and human activities, could alter nitrogen cycles in the ocean. Nitrogen is a vital nutrient for organisms, so the impact could be substantial. The result could be an altered food chain - and unknown consequences.

"There is growing concern about this issue because human activities are modifying ocean pH so rapidly," said UC Merced biologist and researcher Michael Beman. "While we do not know what the full effects of changing the nitrogen cycle will be, we performed experiments all over the world and believe that these changes will be global in extent."

The report stems from the latest research at UC Merced, which has recorded more than 50 breakthroughs and discoveries, including 16 inventions related to solar energy and 12 related to health research.

California Adopts Ambitious Cap And Trade Program


California regulators have approved an ambitious carbon-trading program in a move that some businesses fear will increase their costs, but also could be a potential revenue boon to the financially struggling state.

The 9-1 vote by the California Air Resources Board - at a packed meeting that featured climate skeptics with signs reading, "Global Warming: Science by Homer Simpson," according to Huffington Post - creates a complicated market for carbon credits effective in 2012. It allows big emitters, such as power plants, refiners and other industries, to buy carbon credits as a way to comply with mandatory emission cuts.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, the regulations come on the heels of the Cancun climate talks and six weeks after voters in California kept AB 32, the state's landmark climate law - of which cap and trade was a portion. Attempts to create a national cap and trade program have not been successful.

Supporters hope the California program will be a model for other states to follow.
There also is talk of linking it to cap and trade programs in New Mexico and Canada.

Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols said the state will create mechanisms to prevent manipulation of the carbon market, and wants a fund that uses carbon auction funds for energy-savings programs for low-income families.

The state plans to give away most of the carbon allowances in the first few years, but, by some estimates, $7 billion of revenue could eventually be created through a market. Here is a Los Angeles Times story that gives a good analysis of the program.

Meanwhile, manufacturers weren't necessarily keen on the whole thing, this San Diego Union-Tribune story notes. Here's a quote: "It will hurt manufacturers hard — raising costs on all types of energy,” warned Dorothy Rothrock, their lead negotiator on the issue for a business organization. “Manufacturers can’t pass along the costs of cap and trade when prices are set in global markets.”

There also is some speculation that the program could lead to rate increases.
Good or bad, the new regulation is an indication that California is serious about climate change.

"Billions of dollars are being poured into California in clean technology venture capital investment," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in the Wall Street Journal story. "Of course, we have to be sensitive because it's an economic downturn, and this Air Resources Board knows they have to be sensitive. But we have to reach our goals by 2020."

Photo by heatingoil.com

Report: Cap- And -Trade Could Create Jobs In California


A new report suggests a cap-and-trade program in California could be good for the state. Here's the story in The Sacramento Bee, along with a link to the study and related press release.


California voters signaled their support for green energy in the recent election, supporting AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act adopted in 2006, and sweeping Jerry Brown back into office. Brown, who faces a daunting deficit, has a strong green-jobs platform.
Graphic by mind.ofdan.ca