Lifted from terrapass.com By Erin Craig 5/26/2010

I heard a luncheon speaker last week who channeled James Hansen as he asserted that mitigating climate change is, more than anything else, about coal. And that actions short of shutting down all the coal plants are something between a palliative and an unwarranted distraction.

This line of thinking couldn’t be more right and more wrong at the same time.

The math is incontrovertible. First, here’s a quick study on the relative quantities of greenhouse gases emitted when fossil fuels are combusted:

Next, here’s the most recent data and projections on fuel use from the US Energy Information Administration:

So, yes, coal is exceptionally rich in greenhouse gas emissions, and unless there’s a meaningful intervention we’re going to burn a whole lot of coal.

But what is the best way to bring about that intervention? Does anyone really think we have the political will and the economic stamina to self-impose the short-term but serious and widespread socioeconomic dislocation which would result from swift closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants in the US, never mind stemming their growth in China and India?

Coal is abundant and available domestically in China, the US, India and Russia, not coincidentally the four largest users of coal. And, though I don’t like my own conclusion, I simply can’t envision a future where nations with abundant domestic energy reserves don’t make use of them.

That’s why I’m increasingly a fan of aiming at better ways to use coal. Carbon capture and sequestration is one approach that’s received much attention(pdf). Another is new-age coal-to-liquid technologies, including some which combine coal with biomass to lower the carbon footprint of the resulting liquid fuel. Interestingly, coal-to-liquids research is the recipient of substantial US military funding, as the military has an important interest in securing domestic liquid fuels and the foresight to push suppliers to low-carbon solutions.

We do need to intervene on a grand scale in the coal combustion cycle. To make that happen, we need to step away from all-or-nothing rhetoric, continue to demonstrate our willingness to change by taking personal actions no matter how individually small, and create not only the incentives (that price on carbon we talk so much about) but the technology path to the low-carbon future.

Image by flickr user Bruno D Rodrigues.

By Adam Stein | March 2, 2010 Lifted from Terrapass.com:

For my valedictory post, it’s tempting to engage in a little big-picture think. I’m also still mulling the general reaction to Bill Gates’ TED talk, which seemed to me both entirely too hostile and also reflective of some of the lingering pathologies in the environmental movement. So, yeah, this is going to be a bit of a ramble.

Let’s start by putting forth two propositions:

1. In the future we will be richer (and that’s a good thing)
2. Technology will save us from climate change (if anything does)

Both of these statements are very probably true, but they tend to raise hackles among greens unless they’re wrapped in thick layers of caveats. Now, there’s nothing wrong with a nice caveat – I use them all the time myself – but, as the some of the nitpicking reactions to Gates’ talk reveal, it’s possible to cling to them too tightly.

First, wealth. Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, caused a stir in 2006 with the release of a report claiming that, if left unchecked, climate change could knock a full 20% off global GDP over the next two centuries. The Stern Review was both more detailed and more dire than previous attempts to quantify the economic impact of climate change. Although the report immediately set off a huge methodological squabble, the effect was nonetheless electrifying: a respected economist, working under the auspices of the British government, had declared that the costs of inaction on climate change massively outweigh the costs of action.

The little-noted kicker is that even in the terrible 20% scenario, the world will still be far richer than it is today. Not nearly as rich as it could or should be, but better off than we are now.

It’s fair to point out that the impacts of climate change will be unevenly distributed, and that measures of GDP fail to capture these effects. But it’s also important to note that, even as the developed world suffers through a calamitous financial crisis, these are the best of the times for the world’s poor, and the situation is likely to keep getting better (emphasis added):

World poverty is falling. Between 1970 and 2006, the global poverty rate has been cut by nearly three quarters…Although world population has increased by about 80% over this time (World Bank 2009), the number of people below the $1 a day poverty line has shrunk by nearly 64%, from 967 million in 1970 to 350 million in 2006. In the past 36 years, there has never been a moment with more than 1 billion people in poverty, and barring a catastrophe, there will never be such a moment in the future history of the world.

Second, technology. Gates has gotten some (deserved) criticism for making disparaging remarks about energy efficiency, but his larger point is indisputable: we can’t conserve our way to zero emissions, so the long-term solution to climate change necessarily requires producing all of our energy from renewable resources. I might also add that the vast majority of emissions reductions from efficiency and conservation will also come from technological improvements.

In a response to Gates’ speech (“Why Bill Gates is wrong”), David Roberts complains that the focus on technology distracts from innovation in other areas, such as policy, systems integration, infrastructure development, finance, and even social norms. But, look: almost all “distraction” arguments are really just quibbling, and this one is no different. Although whizzy gadgets might first come to mind when we think about innovation, in truth society is quite good at recognizing and rewarding innovation that has very little to do with technological breakthroughs. In fact, it’s fair to say that greater rewards accrue to the people who disseminate and apply new technology to age-old problems than to those who invent it. Neither Amazon nor eBay invented the internet. They just used it to make a better way to shop. Likewise, the Passive House standard is just the systematized application of well-understood design principles and low-tech efficiency improvements. But it still represents technological innovation.

Part of the reason that greens push back on these truisms about wealth and technology is that many anti-environmentalists use glib versions of these arguments to argue for complacency or, worse, to push a noxious policy agenda. Such efforts deserve vocal opposition. But Bill Gates doesn’t. His speech included a call for carbon pricing, an endorsement of Al Gore’s most recent book, a nod to the problems of deforestation and cement production, and a strong plug for regulatory reform, energy efficiency, solar and wind energy. For a short speech focused mostly on a single energy start-up, it did a remarkably good job of covering its environmental bases.

So why the piling on? In part, Gates raised ire because he didn’t spend a lot of time on the usual pieties. Absent from his talk was any moralism about western lifestyles. His call for “energy miracles” was uncomfortably close to a call for silver bullets (something all good greens know to boo). He spoke like an engineer trying to solve a really big engineering challenge. And in so doing, he triggered some of the cultural grievances that often underlie discussions of energy consumption. I wrote recently that the environmental issue I care most deeply about is “finding a way to sustain nine billion wealthy and fulfilled human beings on a planet that hasn’t been completely despoiled.” This seems like an uncontroversial stance – which part would you argue with? – but it nevertheless prompted glib and entirely predictable comments about McMansions.

My guess is that Bill Gates’ formulation of the problem sounds really good to people who are worried about climate change but aren’t necessarily committed environmentalists. And frankly, that’s more important than being right on every single technical point, or achieving the officially sanctioned balance of tone and emphasis. If we want the issue of climate change to escape the green ghetto, we would do well to set cultural grievances aside. Partly this is just smart politics. People really don’t want to be lectured about their sins. But more importantly, such grievances lead us down the wrong path. Asking for a worldwide movement of people voluntarily and significantly downgrading their lifestyle to spare the earth is to pray for an energy miracle far beyond anything Bill Gates can conceive.

There is good news here. With the right policies in place, and the right research and development, and with swift innovation on many different fronts, future citizens will be transformed into eco-warriors by default. My grandmother refuses to touch a computer, but one-year-old babies can use an iPhone. Likewise, tomorrow’s kids are going to be energy geniuses and environmental savants, not because they’re any smarter or more enlightened than we are, but because the structure of their society and their technology and their markets will make it so.

At least, that’s my hope. We need to push forward in a variety of ways to bring such a vision to pass. And we need to shed some of the grim moralism to build a stronger environmental movement. Even if I’m pretty sure tomorrow is going to be better than today, I don’t think we can take anything for granted.

By Tim Varga... lifted from terrapass.com

Europe is freezing and the Eastern U.S. just experienced a snow-pocolypse, so surely the whole global warming thing must be wrong, right?

Sorry, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), but global warming is still happening, even though it snowed in January (of all things). According to the latest satellite data analyzed by climate scientist and IPCC member Neville Nicholls, this last January was hotter than any previously recorded January.

It’s not just January, either - it was the entire decade:

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in December that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850, and that 2009 would likely be the fifth warmest year on record. WMO data show that eight out of the 10 hottest years on record have all been since 2000.

It’s hard, sometimes, to accept pervasive trend data as accurate when personal experience contradicts it. In a similar way, you might be understandably skeptical of your town’s assessment that crime is down if you’ve just been robbed and so has your neighbor. It’s crucial, though, to remember that snow storms in winter are weather events, and global average temperature is a measure of our whole climate. No single weather event - including disastrous ones like Hurricane Katrina or the recent blizzards on the East coast - are directly caused by a changing climate. But scientists are telling us that increased warming of the climate can and will lead to more and stronger weather events, both hot and cold.

By William Yeatman and lifted from globalwarming.org

Global warming may or may not be a problem. Man may or may not be driving it. Given the uncertainties, a significant amount of global regret may apply if we divert too much of our global wealth to solving what may be a non-existent or trivial problem, especially if that diversion mires billions in poverty. On the other hand, we may also regret not doing anything if man-made global warming does turn out to be a problem. It is therefore prudent to examine what steps we can take that would prove beneficial whether or not anthropogenic global warming turns out to be a problem. These steps can be termed “no regrets” policies.

What makes a No Regrets Global Warming Policy? A global warming policy can be termed “no regrets” as long as it:

• Reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, or
• Mitigates, prevents or reduces a harm associated with global warming, or
• Provides greater capacity for dealing with problems associated with global warming
• Without imposing significant cost or diverting economic activity.

Top Five “No Regrets” Policies

1.) Eliminate all subsidies to fuel use.
Subsidies to energy R&D cost taxpayers millions of dollars while producing minimal benefits. While these programs may be relatively small given the size of domestic energy markets, they serve little, if any, useful purpose while subsidizing large corporations at taxpayer expense. The potential threat of global warming, whether it is real or not, is simply one more reason to eliminate these subsidy programs. An international agreement aimed at ending energy subsidy with binding targets would be a significant victory for emissions reduction. Unlike Kyoto, which forces an energy starvation diet on its participants, such a treaty would be a move to combat energy obesity.

2.) Repeal the Federal Flood Insurance Program.
Much of the concern over global warming’s potential for harm in the US relates to sea level rise and the flooding that will result. However, much of the investment in potentially vulnerable areas is a result of the Federal flood Insurance Program. This program encourages building in vulnerable areas by acting as a moral hazard: people take greater risks because the government has said it will help bear that risk. Reform would reduce the moral hazard connected with building on vulnerable land, transferring the risk from the taxpayer to the private sector, which is likely to take a more realistic view of the issue.

3.) Reform Air Traffic Control Systems.
Greater demand for air travel means more flights, which means greater fuel use and increased emissions. Yet, the current government-operated system of air traffic control, based on a 1920s-era system of beacons, may hinder innovations that could reduce fuel use and emissions. As a general rule, the shorter the flight, the less fuel will be consumed. Yet neither airlines nor pilots have the freedom to choose the most direct and economical route. Giving pilots freedom to map their own course is an attractive and desirable change in the eyes of the industry, and the impact on the environment would be tremendous. As well as saving considerable amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, the policy will deliver significant benefits in terms of time and expense to the US economy. By obviating significant reductions in service levels associated with more routine applications of emissions reduction policy, it is to be preferred to that approach.

4.) Facilitate Electricity Competition.
By rejecting the model of central regulation and allowing suppliers to meet their customers’ needs more exactly while relying on distributed generation, energy waste and the associated emissions will reduce considerably. This reduction in waste will prove economically beneficial even if emissions themselves do not cause problems.

5.) Reduce Regulatory Barriers to New Nuclear Build.
There is no other technology than nuclear that is proven to be capable of providing emissions-free energy at the scale required to make significant reductions in carbon emissions. The problem is that thanks to anti-nuclear activism by environmentalists in the 1970s, it takes a very long time to build a nuclear plant. This pushes development and construction costs up to the level where it is not economically competitive with higher-emitting forms of electricity generation like coal and natural gas. According to the nuclear energy institute, it takes 10 years from concept to operation to build a nuclear plant, and only four of those are construction, the rest is permit application development (2 years) and decision-making by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (4 years).

By Pete Davies and lifted from Terrapass.com

It’s tempting to point out that global warming doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s always going to be warmer. It’s why many of us prefer the term “climate change”, after all. Yes, global average temperatures are moving upwards, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always going to be warmer everywhere, just more volatile.

But actually this current cold spell has nothing to do with climate change. Apparently it’s caused by Arctic oscillation: higher than average pressure over the Arctic is pushing cold air further south than is usual in the winter.

Dr. Walter Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado tells the New York Times that while we’re freezing here, it’s been much warmer than normal in the Arctic, as high as 15 degrees above average. It “probably roughly cancels out,” Dr Meier says.

There’s no shortage of blogs (I don’t want to give them link credit) that have seized on the cold snap (picture credit to one of them) and used it to discredit global warming. Meanwhile, the denier-supporting media has even managed to back up a claim that we’re in for 30 years of cooling. (The scientist didn’t actually say that.)

Nobody seems very clear on when an Arctic oscillation is likely to happen, or why. What does seem clear however, is that it’s unrelated to global warming. Or cooling. It’s happened before and will happen again. Tell your friends — you never know who might be having their doubts.

From terrapass.com:

Adam Stein | November 1, 2009

This isn’t exactly a new trend — I remember writing about it several years ago — but it seems to be picking up some steam:

More than 13,000 hunters and anglers from across the country joined a “virtual town hall” teleconference on Tuesday to hear a discussion of the impact of climate change on fish and wildlife populations, and to voice their support for federal action to limit carbon emissions.

Recently I whined about how environmentalists are a perennial whipping boy. Part of the issue, I think, is that most people view environmental issues as interest group politics. Where topics like employment or security are seen as matters of national importance, environmental issues — even transcendent ones like climate change — remain stuck in the green ghetto.

So I’m always a little bit heartened when I see these issues getting picked up in other venues. Evangelical Christians have likewise become increasingly vocal in their support for climate change legislation:

Remember the Christian Coalition of America?

Under the political operative Ralph Reed in the 1990s it was an electoral force to be reckoned with as it mobilized millions of conservative Christians to vote for mostly Republican Party candidates and causes.

It has since lost influence and political ground to other “religious right” groups such as the Family Research Council. But it remains a sizeable grassroots organization and is still unflinchingly conservative.

So it will no doubt surprise some to see that this week it has joined with the National Wildlife Federation – whose 4 million members and supporters includes 420,000 sportsmen and women – to run an ad urging the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that among other things addresses the pressing problem of climate change.

Good. This is how you know that progress is inevitable.

From www.terrapass.com

Clearing up after a flood costs money, wastes energy and reduces productivity. Just like climate change.

We’re in the middle of the first storm of the season on the West Coast. As I write this I’m looking at a pile of industrial hairdryers that are going to be used to deal with our soggy office: a couple of blocked drains on a patio at the top of the building caused a pretty severe flood in the early hours of the morning.

I’m not qualified to suggest (and don’t intend to imply) that this particular storm is any worse than usual. The reality is that if we didn’t get flooded today, it would happen in a month or two when the winter storms blow through.

As the Water Remediation company (it’s what you look for in the Yellow Pages when your floor is too wet for a mop) plugs in the various dryers and dehumidifiers I’m seeing the miniature version of climate change disaster-response unfolding in front of my desk.

• There’s a lot of money being spent. Thankfully it’s our landlord’s insurance that pays for the cleanup and repairs. In the big world it is taxpayers and society that do it.

• We’re using a lot of energy. This kit is going to do bad things to our energy bill. It doesn’t matter how many CFLs we’ve installed and how conservative we were with the A/C this year, three days with the dryers and dehumidifiers running will dwarf those savings.

• There’s a tremendous loss of productivity around the office. As a company we’re well adapted to people working remotely, so I suppose it could be much worse. But bailing out patios with recycling bins isn’t going to get us funding a carbon reduction project at a dairy farm any quicker is it?

Simple and concise then: more expense, more energy and huge loss of productivity.

And all avoidable, if there was a little money spent earlier. Reminds me of something… I wonder what that could be…

L Prize competition tries to sidestep early mistakes in quest for better light

Philips may claim the “L Prize,” a $10 million award from the Department of Energy for any light that can reproduce the color and intensity of a 60-watt bulb using only 1/6 the power. Further, the winning entry must last at least 25 times as long as a standard incandescent.

The L Prize was established, in part, to prevent a recurrence of the problems with CFLs:

The department considers the introduction of compact fluorescents, today’s alternative to standard bulbs, to have been a debacle.

At first, the department set no standards for compact fluorescent bulbs and inferior products flooded the market. Consumers rebelled against the bulbs’ shortcomings: the light output from compact fluorescent bulbs was cold and unpleasant, their life was much shorter than claimed, many were large and undimmable, they would not work in cold environments and they contained polluting mercury.

In another article, the Times notes that CFL sales are falling:

In a September 18 letter to C.F.L. industry stakeholders, Richard Karney, Energy Star products manager, said that national sales of the bulbs have declined 25 percent from their peak in 2007, with sales in some regions such as Vermont and parts of Massachusetts declining 35 to 50 percent…

Despite more than a decade of costly C.F.L. promotions — including giveaways, discounted prices and rebates — the bulbs have failed to capture the hearts (and sockets) of American consumers. Mr. Karney said that in regions where C.F.L. campaigns have been heaviest, 75 percent of screw-based sockets still contain incandescents. Nationally, about 90 percent of residential sockets are still occupied by incandescents, D.O.E. has reported.

I’m not sure the situation with CFLs is as bad as all that. 25% market share strikes me as pretty decent for a new product from a young industry still working out cost and quality issues. Consumers tend to be pretty conservative, particularly if they lack a strong motivation to switch. I wonder to what extent the slowdown in sales reflects the fact that a) CFLs don’t need to be replaced very often, and b) most early adopters have already switched over.

Nonetheless, it’s clear that much could have gone better with the introduction of the CFLs, and perhaps the L Prize will smooth the transition to the next phase of lighting technology. Philips is the first company to submit a contest entry, which now must undergo a year of testing to determine if it claims the prize.

Philip’s entry is a bulb-shaped LED, and the rub, as always, is cost. The company claims that in the long-term, they can get the cost down to $20 - $25 per bulb. This may not seem like much of a bargain, although the decreased power consumption and long lifetime of the bulbs should more than make up the difference.

In a new study conducted by the University of Cincinnati (UC), environmental health researchers found that major countries in three continents fail to acknowledge the hazards of lead based paint, allowing manufacturers to continue selling consumer paints containing dangerously high levels of lead. According to study, 73 percent of consumer paint brands tested from 12 countries representing 46 percent of the world’s population exceeded current U.S. standard of 600 parts per million (ppm). Additionally, 69 percent of the brands had at least one sample exceeding 10,000 ppm. Scott Clark, a professor of environmental health at UC, stated that "lead paint exposure remains a serious global health threat" considering the majority of American consumer goods are being produced overseas.

The study was published today in the journal Environmental Research online. According to a press release issued by UC, "the report comes on the tail of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s enforcement of heightened restrictions on lead in American consumer paints, which will take effect Aug. 9, 2009, and will lower the allowable lead limit from 600 ppm to 90 ppm."

Professor Clark’s research team has been studying the global use of lead-based consumer paints for several years, publishing one of the first scientific reports in September 2006 showing that unregulated Asian countries produced and sold new consumer paints that greatly exceeded U.S. lead safety levels. According to the earlier study, "75 percent of the consumer paint samples tested from countries without controls— including India, Malaysia and China—had levels exceeding U.S. regulations."

Lead poisoning in children is a widely recognized health concern, yet lead based paints remain widely used. Why? Is the cost of lead based paint cheaper and therefore more essential in these developing nations? Apparently no. According to the UC press release, Clark states "our studies have shown that when comparing the prices of the same size can of paint produced by several companies within India with a wide range of lead concentrations, there is no significant consumer price difference between leaded and unleaded consumer paint."

Maybe the technology needed to create high-quality unleaded consumer paint is not available? Not according to the study. During the course of the UC study, one large multi-national company produced low lead paint in each country studied and another manufacturer was found to cease the use of lead in paints in at least one of the countries studied. Clark further states that the "technology is available to manufacturers, which do not need to use lead to produce high-quality paint...there is no legitimate reason paint manufacturers should knowingly distribute a product that has long been known to be dangerous to people."

This article was taken from www.enn.com/health/article/40311

A common problem I see as a painter is homeowners with a bunch of old paint in the garage. Who knows when it was used or what color is in the can, but it would be great to get rid of it.

Don't throw it away!

Old paint can be donated, reused, recycled, or as a last resort... properly disposed at a licensed facility.

It is illegal to dispose of paint in the trash or down storm or sewer drains, because paint can contaminate drinking water and ocean water. Special collection programs have been established to accept paint for recycling or proper disposal.

Here in San Diego County, there are several locations that accept old paint. You can find the closest location to you at http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/chd/hhwfacilities.html

Reuse Options
If you have leftover, unwanted paint in good condition, consider contacting a local charity, high school drama department, or church to see if they will accept paint for reuse. Examples of nonprofit organizations that may be interested in leftover paint include local Habitat for Humanity chapters and Keep America Beautiful affiliates.

Recycling Options
Local paint reuse and recycling programs collect paint from residents and commercial businesses. The paint is then taken to a company that will then recycle it into recycled-content paint. This type of paint is created through two processes - reprocessing and reblending.

Reprocessed paint is mixed with virgin materials, tested and then packaged for distribution or sale.

Reblended paint is remixed, screened and packaged for distribution or sale. Typically reblended paint comes in only a handful of basic neutral colors. It has a much higher percentage of recycled content paint then reprocessed paint, which may influence its overall quality. Reblended paint can be used for interior/exterior painting, graffiti abatement, and local improvement projects.

When disposing of paint:

• Read the label and follow for the manufacturer’s instructions for proper disposal.
• Check with your local recycling or household hazardous waster coordinator regarding acceptable practices in your community for the disposal of dried latex paint.
• Empty containers may be thrown in the trash. A container is considered “empty” if no paint can be removed with a brush or by holding it upside down.