:: P O S E I D O N Z B L O G ::

THREE FOR CALI !!

Entitled "Leaders Accept California Bill to Cut Emissions", Felicity Barringer reported for the NYT from Sacremento on August 31, 2006...

California’s political leaders announced an agreement on Wednesday that imposes the most sweeping controls on carbon dioxide emissions in the nation, putting the state at the forefront of a broad campaign to curb the man-made causes of climate change despite resistance in Washington.

The deal between the Democratic-controlled Legislature and the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, calls for a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, and could establish controls on the largest industrial sectors, including utilities, oil refineries and cement plants. The state has already placed strict limits on automobile emissions, although that move is being challenged in federal court.

The Bush administration has rejected the idea of similar national controls on carbon dioxide emissions, and efforts to get Congressional approval for such firm caps on emissions have repeatedly been defeated.

Although the deal in California is strongly opposed by Republicans in the Legislature and many business leaders across the state, it assures that a bill on the restrictions will be passed before the legislative session ends Thursday and will be signed by Mr. Schwarzenegger, the leaders said Wednesday.

The first major controls are scheduled to begin in 2012, with the aim of reducing the emissions to their level in 1990. The legislation allows for incentives to businesses to help reach the goals, but opponents warn that the state may be sacrificing its economic interests for a quixotic goal.

“If our manufacturers leave, whether for North Carolina or China, and they take their greenhouse gases with them, we might not have solved the problem but exacerbated it instead,” said Allan Zaremberg, the president of the state’s Chamber of Commerce.

Since taking office in 2003, Mr. Schwarzenegger, who is seeking reelection in November, has championed efforts to fight climate change, most recently by signing an agreement with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to do cooperative research on new clean-energy technologies.

The governor said Wednesday that the deal struck with the Democrats would make “California a world leader in the effort to reduce carbon emissions.”

“The success of our system will be an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues,” Mr. Schwarzenegger added.

The Assembly speaker, Fabian Nuñez, Democrat of Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, a leading sponsor of the legislation, said at a news conference here, “We feel that California has always been a leader in protecting the environment.”

“We now have moved it to the next level,’’ Mr. Nuñez said. “We’d all like to see California one day be carbon free.”

The state’s action, he said, could set off a “bottom-up” movement for curbs of heat-trapping gases in states around the country.

That has been the goal of national environmental groups like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, which helped sponsor the California legislation. It has also been the goal of Ms. Pavley, Democrat of Agoura Hills and the author, in 2002, of a groundbreaking law reducing tailpipe emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Already, the governors of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and four New England states have signed an agreement to curb power-plant emissions, cutting them by 10 percent by 2019. That would amount to about 24 million tons, said Dale Bryk of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel’s New York office — about one-seventh of the total envisioned in the California legislation, which will be an estimated 174 million tons.

Ms. Bryk added that Massachusetts and New Hampshire have enacted some emissions curbs, but the number of power plants involved is minuscule, compared with the California effort.

A recent poll of Californians by the Public Policy Institute of California showed nearly four of five respondents said that urgent action on climate change was needed. Aside from its long coastline, which could be vulnerable to sea-level rises due to global warming, the state depends on the Sierra Nevada snow pack for much of its water supply.

A study in 2004 by the National Academy of Science showed that unchecked global warming would cut the size of the snow pack by at least 29 percent by the end of the century. It also predicted a doubling in the number of heat waves, like the record-breaking one in July that killed 139 people statewide.

The deal on Wednesday on the emissions legislation nearly foundered at least three times in the past week as Mr. Schwarzenegger’s negotiators reached seeming impasses with the Legislature over important issues: whether the bill would require the creation of market mechanisms like emissions credits to help industries meet the new standards; how broad to make exemptions during emergencies like the state’s electricity crisis six years ago, and how to administer and enforce the law.

In the end, after three weeks filled with late-night sessions, according to legislative staffers who were not authorized to speak for attribution, Mr. Nuñez met with Mr.. Schwarzenegger on Wednesday morning and said that the Assembly and Senate had agreed on final language and intended to enact the legislation with or without his consent.

That left the governor to decide whether the final language fell so far short of his wishes that he could take the political risk during an election year of vetoing a signature piece of environmental legislation whose aims he had supported.

In the end, the governor and the legislative leaders, including the Senate president, Don Perata, Democrat of Oakland, announced their agreement.

Ralph Cavanagh, the co-director of the energy program of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a telephone interview: “This is not an act of altruism. This is an act of enlightened self-interest. By accelerating the effort to reduce global warming pollution, California will benefit its own economy and environment and in so doing will set the best possible example for other states and nations.”

Business leaders had been divided on the climate-change measure, with leading venture capitalists from Silicon Valley openly stumping for passage, saying the measure will create new industries and new jobs. The state Chamber of Commerce led the opposition, saying that the measure would prompt an exodus of industry to other states without greenhouse-gas controls, while California would be hamstrung in trying to attract out-of-state businesses.

The bill gives the California Air Resources Board, which enforces the state’s air pollution controls, the lead authority for generally establishing how much industry groups contribute to global warming pollution, for assigning emission targets, and for setting non-compliance penalties. It sets out a two-year time frame, until 2009, to establish how the system will operate and then allows three years, until 2012, for the industries to start their cutbacks.

Peter Darbee, the chairman and chief executive of Pacific Gas & Electric, broke with his industry as PG&E became the first and possibly only major utility in the state to support the legislation, called the Global Warming Solutions Act.

“The issue of climate change is important and needs to be dealt with,” Mr. Darbee said. “We need a pragmatic and practical result. Since the bill has a market-based program it will work efficiently and effectively for businesses.”

A safety-valve provision in the bill, which could, in an emergency, give companies a year’s hiatus in complying with their mandates, was also key, he said.

MORE..

Technorati Tags: leadership, economics, energy, global warming, environment, faith, pollution, climate change

For More Authority..

This month the Scientific American has thrown its weight and expertise in a whole series of articles into the global warming debate and with a constructive eye to the future. Below I'm rolling out Gary Stix's introductory piece. Author Ross Gelbspan who tipped me this edition's content, says it's the best $5 he's spent in a long time. Given what follows you can believe that. So if you need the 'grand authority' in print to help persuade a workmate or folks at the bar or club, and you are passing the magazine stall, how about picking a copy up..

A Climate Repair Manual : Global warming is a reality. Innovation in energy technology and policy are sorely needed if we are to cope

By Gary Stix

Carbon emissions are heating the earth.

Explorers attempted and mostly failed over the centuries to establish a pathway from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the icebound North, a quest often punctuated by starvation and scurvy. Yet within just 40 years, and maybe many fewer, an ascending thermometer will likely mean that the maritime dream of Sir Francis Drake and Captain James Cook will turn into an actual route of commerce that competes with the Panama Canal.

The term "glacial change" has taken on a meaning opposite to its common usage. Yet in reality, Arctic shipping lanes would count as one of the more benign effects of accelerated climate change. The repercussions of melting glaciers, disruptions in the Gulf Stream and record heat waves edge toward the apocalyptic: floods, pestilence, hurricanes, droughts--even itchier cases of poison ivy. Month after month, reports mount of the deleterious effects of rising carbon levels. One recent study chronicled threats to coral and other marine organisms, another a big upswing in major wildfires in the western U.S. that have resulted because of warming.

The debate on global warming is over. Present levels of carbon dioxide--nearing 400 parts per million (ppm) in the earth's atmosphere--are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650,000 years and could easily surpass 500 ppm by the year 2050 without radical intervention.

The earth requires greenhouse gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, to prevent some of the heat from the received solar radiation from escaping back into space, thus keeping the planet hospitable for protozoa, Shetland ponies and Lindsay Lohan. But too much of a good thing--in particular, carbon dioxide from SUVs and local coal-fired utilities--is causing a steady uptick in the thermometer. Almost all of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since the 1980s.

No one knows exactly what will happen if things are left unchecked--the exact date when a polar ice sheet will complete a phase change from solid to liquid cannot be foreseen with precision, which is why the Bush administration and warming-skeptical public-interest groups still carry on about the uncertainties of climate change. But no climat-ol-ogist wants to test what will arise if carbon dioxide levels drift much higher than 500 ppm.

A League of Rations

Preventing the transformation of the earth's atmosphere from greenhouse to unconstrained hothouse represents arguably the most imposing scientific and technical challenge that humanity has ever faced. Sustained marshaling of cross-border engineering and political resources over the course of a century or more to check the rise of carbon emissions makes a moon mission or a Manhattan Project appear comparatively straightforward.

Climate change compels a massive restructuring of the world's energy economy. Worries over fossil-fuel supplies reach crisis proportions only when safeguarding the climate is taken into account. Even if oil production peaks soon--a debatable contention given Canada's oil sands, Venezuela's heavy oil and other reserves--coal and its derivatives could tide the earth over for more than a century. But fossil fuels, which account for 80 percent of the world's energy usage, become a liability if a global carbon budget has to be set.

Translation of scientific consensus on climate change into a consensus on what should be done about it carries the debate into the type of political minefield that has often undercut attempts at international governance since the League of Nations. The U.S. holds less than 5 percent of the world's population but produces nearly 25 percent of carbon emissions and has played the role of saboteur by failing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels.

Yet one of the main sticking points for the U.S.--the absence from that accord of a requirement that developing countries agree to firm emission limits--looms as even more of an obstacle as a successor agreement is contemplated to take effect when Kyoto expires in 2012. The torrid economic growth of China and India will elicit calls from industrial nations for restraints on emissions, which will again be met by even more adamant retorts that citizens of Shenzhen and Hyderabad should have the same opportunities to build their economies that those of Detroit and Frankfurt once did.

Kyoto may have been a necessary first step, if only because it lit up the pitted road that lies ahead. But stabilization of carbon emissions will require a more tangible blueprint for nurturing further economic growth while building a decarbonized energy infrastructure. An oil company's "Beyond Petroleum" slogans will not suffice.

Industry groups advocating nuclear power and clean coal have stepped forward to offer single-solution visions of clean energy. But too much devoted too early to any one technology could yield the wrong fix and derail momentum toward a sustainable agenda for decarbonization. Portfolio diversification underlies a plan laid out by Robert H. Socolow and Stephen W. Pacala in this single-topic edition of Scientific American. The two Princeton University professors describe how deployment of a basket of technologies and strategies can stabilize carbon emissions by midcentury.

Perhaps a solar cell breakthrough will usher in the photovoltaic age, allowing both a steel plant and a cell phone user to derive all needed watts from a single source. But if that does not happen--and it probably won't--many technologies (biofuels, solar, hydrogen and nuclear) will be required to achieve a low-carbon energy supply. All these approaches are profiled by leading experts in this special issue, as are more radical ideas, such as solar power plants in outer space and fusion generators, which may come into play should today's seers prove myopic 50 years hence.

No More Business as Usual

Planning in 50- or 100-year increments is perhaps an impossible dream. The slim hope for keeping atmospheric carbon below 500 ppm hinges on aggressive programs of energy efficiency instituted by national governments. To go beyond what climate specialists call the "business as usual" scenario, the U.S. must follow Europe and even some of its own state governments in instituting new policies that affix a price on carbon--whether in the form of a tax on emissions or in a cap-and-trade system (emission allowances that are capped in aggregate at a certain level and then traded in open markets). These steps can furnish the breathing space to establish the defense-scale research programs needed to cultivate fossil fuel alternatives. The current federal policy vacuum has prompted a group of eastern states to develop their own cap-and-trade program under the banner of the

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Fifty-year time frames are planning horizons for futurists, not pragmatic policymakers. Maybe a miraculous new energy technology will simultaneously solve our energy and climate problems during that time, but another scenario is at least as likely: a perceived failure of Kyoto or international bickering over climate questions could foster the burning of abundant coal for electricity and synthetic fuels for transportation, both without meaningful checks on carbon emissions.

A steady chorus of skeptics continues to cast doubt on the massive peer--reviewed scientific literature that forms the cornerstone for a consensus on global warming. "They call it pollution; we call it life," intones a Competitive Enterprise Institute advertisement on the merits of carbon dioxide. Uncertainties about the extent and pace of warming will undoubtedly persist. But the consequences of inaction could be worse than the feared economic damage that has bred overcaution. If we wait for an ice cap to vanish, it will simply be too late.

Truly,

Technorati Tags: energy, Security, global warming, environment, faith, news, human health, Carbon dioxide, climate change, innovation

Extensive and Intensive..

Along similar lines to Senator Feinstein's speech in the previous post is this Executive Summary of a PIRG Report for August, 2006..

Extensive scientific evidence demonstrates that global warming is real, that it is affecting us now, and that human activities—particularly the burning of fossil fuels—are the primary cause.

Science is also clear about what we need to do to address the problem: immediately and significantly reduce emissions of the pollutants that cause global warming. Avoiding the worst consequences of global warming will require the United States and other industrialized countries to stabilize emissions within the next decade and reduce them by about 80 percent by midcentury.

Achieving those reductions won’t be easy, but it can be done. By improving the efficiency with which we use fossil fuels and increasing our use of clean, renewable energy, the United States can reduce its global warming emissions in the near future, while putting America on a path toward dramatically lower global warming emissions in the decades to come.

This report lists six challenging but feasible strategies that, if implemented, could achieve these reductions, while improving America’s environment and our energy security.

Global warming is real, is happening now, and poses a serious threat to America’s future.

• Global average temperatures increased by 1˚ F in the 20th century and are now increasing at a rate of about 0.36˚ F per decade. Sea levels are on the rise, ice and snow cover are decreasing, and hurricane intensity has increased.

• The consensus view of the scientific community is that most of the global warming that has occurred is due to human activities—particularly the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel consumption releases carbon dioxide, which traps the sun’s radiation near the earth’s surface. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 35 percent—a rate of increase unprecedented in the last 20,000 years.

• Should the world continue on its present course, global warming emissions could triple in the next half century, with global temperatures increasing by 8˚ F by 2100. Sea levels would rise by one and a half feet (and possibly more), threatening low-lying coastal areas. And the ecological balance upon which life depends would be irrevocably altered.

The United States has a responsibility to take leadership in reducing global warming pollution.

• The United States is far and away the world’s largest global warming polluter, accounting for 23 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.

• Should current trends continue, by 2030 the United States will emit 37 percent more carbon dioxide than it does today, increasing the likelihood of dramatic global climate change.

• To avoid the worst consequences of global warming, scientists believe that the United States needs to stabilize emissions within a decade, begin reducing them soon thereafter, and cut global warming pollution by 80 percent by the middle of this century.

The United States can achieve significant reductions in global warming pollution by improving the energy efficiency of our economy and using more renewable energy.

The United States can reduce its global warming emissions by as much as 19 percent by 2020 by taking a set of aggressive but achievable steps toward improved energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy, within the context of mandatory limits on global warming pollution.

1) Stabilize vehicle travel. Americans drive nearly twice as many miles per year as they did a quarter-century ago, leading to increased emissions of global warming pollutants. Americans are already cutting back on driving as a result of higher gasoline prices, but many Americans have few realistic alternatives to driving. Through changes in public policy and development patterns, Americans can be given more transportation choices, thus reducing the growth in vehicle travel. Such changes include:

o Encouraging the development of compact neighborhoods with a mix of land uses, where more tasks can be completed by foot, bike or transit.

o Expanding the reach and improving the quality of transit service.

o Supporting programs to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting and other alternatives to single-passenger car travel.

2) Increase vehicle fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon and set fuel economy standards for large trucks. The creation of federal fuel economy standards for cars during the 1970s succeeded in reducing gasoline consumption and oil imports, as well as global warming pollution. But the fuel economy of new vehicles is now lower than it was during most of the Reagan administration.

Several recent studies show that we could increase the fuel economy of new vehicles to 40 miles per gallon within the next decade using technologies that already exist or will be available soon. All types of vehicles— from SUVs to compacts—can be designed to be far more energy efficient. And most of the improvements in fuel economy can actually save money for consumers over the long term, especially with gasoline prices at nearly $3 per gallon. Similarly, major improvements in fuel economy are possible for heavy-duty trucks, which are currently exempt from fuel economy standards.

3) Replace 10 percent of vehicle fuel with biofuels or other clean alternatives. Ethanol and biodiesel that are produced cleanly and sustainably have the potential to significantly reduce global warming emissions from transportation—especially if these biofuels are produced from plant wastes and cellulose. Other vehicle technologies—like “plug-in” hybrids, electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles—have the potential to dramatically reduce global warming emissions in the future.

4) Reduce energy consumption in homes, business and industry by 10 percent from current levels. Dramatic improvements in energy efficiency are possible in virtually every aspect of American life. Studies show that we could reduce our electricity consumption by as much as 20 percent at no net cost to the economy. For now, the U.S. can encourage weatherization of buildings, deployment of more efficient appliances and equipment, and efficiency improvements in industry. Soon, using new technologies such as those in zero-energy homes, we can transform the way we consume energy and achieve even larger improvements in efficiency.

5) Obtain 20 percent of our electricity from new renewable energy sources. America has virtually limitless potential for the generation of power from natural forces. By ramping up our use of wind power, solar power, geothermal and biomass energy and other renewable forms of energy—and using much of that energy to replace power production at dirty, coalfired power plants—the United States could dramatically reduce global warming emissions from electric power production.

6) Hold emissions from other sources to current levels. The five strategies listed above would address the largest sources of energy use and global warming emissions in the United States But some other sources of global warming pollution—such as emissions from air travel and emissions of some non-carbon dioxide global warming gases—are projected to increase significantly in the years ahead. The United States must remain vigilant about stabilizing, and eventually reducing, global warming pollution from all sectors of the economy. Mandatory limits on global warming emissions would help to achieve that goal.

These six steps would enable the United States to reduce its global warming emissions by 19 percent below 2004 levels by 2020.

• Taking these six steps would reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by about 23 percent and global warming emissions by about 19 percent by 2020. (See Table ES-1.)

Table ES-1. Global Warming Emission Impact of the Six Steps (million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent) Strategy Savings MMTCO2E Stabilize Vehicle Travel 0* 40 MPG Fuel Economy and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Economy Standards 383 10% of Transportation Fuel from Renewables 61 10% Reduction in Energy Consumption 400 20% of Electricity from New Renewables 511 Total Savings 1355 2004 U.S. Global Warming Emissions 7122 Reduction Relative to 2004 19% * Avoids increase in emissions resulting from projected increases in vehicle travel between now and 2020.

• In addition, taking these steps will reverse the trajectory of global warming emissions, putting the United States on a path to achieving the even greater reductions in global warming pollution that will be required in the decades to come.

The United States should adopt a series of public policies designed to quickly and significantly reduce emissions of global warming pollutants:

Cap global warming emissions. The United States should establish mandatory, science-based limits on carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants that reduce emissions from today’s levels within 10 years, by 15-20 percent by 2020, and by 80 percent by 2050.

Adopt complementary policies to reduce global warming emissions. The United States should adopt policies that would achieve the targets laid out in this report, including, but not limited to:

• Transportation policies designed to reduce growth in vehicle travel and promote alternatives to automobile travel.

• An increase in federal fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. • Creation of federal fuel economy standards for heavy trucks.

• A renewable fuel standard requiring a significant share of transportation fuel to come from renewables by 2020.

• Policy support for the development and introduction of plug-in hybrid, electric and fuel-cell vehicles.

• Stronger appliance efficiency standards, energy efficiency programs and other policies designed to improve energy efficiency.

• A federal renewable energy standard requiring a large and increasing share of the nation’s electricity to come from renewable energy.

Encourage action at the state level. Federal action to reduce global warming pollution should promote innovative approaches at the state level and not impede individual states or groups of states from pursuing policies that go above and beyond the commitments made by the federal government.

For tables and further information, where a pdf download is available and other media materials.

Truly,

Technorati Tags: green, global warming, faith, environment, climate change, energy, news

Senator Feinstein's Speech

Here is the whole text of Senator Feinstein's speech on global warming. Tks to the San Francisco Chronicle, datelined Friday, August 25, 2006..
It is longish, comprehensive oratory and practical direction at many levels for community leaders and folks at home..

(08-25) 04:00 PDT San Francisco -- This is the prepared text of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's speech on global warming, delivered Thursday evening to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be here tonight to discuss global warming -- the greatest environmental challenge facing this planet. So let me get right to it.

The first seven months of this year were the warmest since climate record-keeping began in 1895. (National Climactic Data Center)

And based on nearly every scientific projection, it's only going to get warmer. The question is how warm?

If temperature increases are kept to 1 to 2 degrees, it is manageable. But if warming increases to 5 to 9 degrees or even more, the effects on our planet will be catastrophic. We must begin to take certain steps now.

So, each of us is confronted with a choice -- a choice that will impact not only our future, but the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Do we continue with a business-as-usual attitude? Or do we make the changes needed to prevent catastrophe?

How did we reach this point?

Quite simply, we are addicted to fossil fuels.

And it is the burning of these fuels – coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas and the resultant greenhouse gas emissions – that is the primary cause of global warming.

Carbon dioxide, the most plentiful of the greenhouse gases, is produced by power plants, cars, manufacturing, and residential and commercial buildings.

And here is the key: Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for five decades or more – causing Earth's temperature to rise.

That means that the carbon dioxide produced in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is still in the atmosphere today. And the carbon dioxide produced today will still be in the atmosphere in 2050 and beyond.

Many of the world's most preeminent scientists – including those at the University of California, the Scripps Institute, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – all predict serious consequences for our planet unless we make major changes in our consumption of energy and strongly move away from energy sources that produce global warming – namely carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.

They say that to stabilize the planet's climate by the end of the century, we need a 70 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Earth has already warmed 1 degree in the past century and we're seeing the dramatic effects:

* The 1990s were the hottest decade on record. * Glaciers are melting; coral reefs are dying; species are disappearing. * Extreme weather patterns have evolved – heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and floods – and they are occurring with greater frequency and greater intensity.

Global warming is also touching us closer to home:

* The Sierra snowpack is shrinking. * The scope and intensity of forest fires in the west is increasing. * And production is down at wineries and dairies as result of the recent heat wave.

Things will only get worse as temperatures rise. The question is how much will the increase be?

If temperatures increase by another 1 to 2 degrees over the next 50 years, we will see major -- but manageable -- shifts in the world around us:

* The Sierra-Nevada snowpack would shrink by 30 percent. * Sea levels would rise up to six inches. * Large wildfires would increase by 10 percent. * And electricity demand would increase by 3 percent. (California Climate Change Center)

These are significant changes – but it is possible to adapt to them.

But if nothing is done…if the Earth warms 5 degrees or more in the next 50 years, the face of our planet will change forever. According to scientific estimates:

* Three out of five species would become extinct. Oceans would rise. Flooding would occur. Hurricanes, tornadoes and weather would become more volatile than ever. Malaria would spread. * Here in California: Two-thirds of the Sierra snowpack would disappear -- equal to the water supply for the 16 million people in the LA basin. * Sea levels would rise more than 2 feet, leading to 100-year floods every 10 years. * Risk of catastrophic wildfire would more than double. * Energy demands would increase 10 to 20 percent. (California Climate Change Center)

We got a mild taste of that future in July. Here in the City, temperatures spiked to 97 degrees. And it was far worse in other areas of California. More than 160 people died. Death Valley temperatures soared to 126 degrees.

So, we're at a tipping point.

Refuse to act, or act too slowly, and humans will have caused the most sudden temperature shift in the history of the planet.

But, if we act soon and decisively, global warming can be limited to 1 to 2 degrees. This, I contend, should be our goal.

U.S. Responsibility

America emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, though we have only 4 percent of its population.

This makes the U.S. the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

Yet today, the federal government is doing nothing to stop global warming. We should be leading the charge.

Here in the United States, the two most significant pieces of the puzzle are:

* Transportation – cars, trucks, planes, cargo ships – which accounts for approximately 33 percent of carbon dioxide emissions; and

* Electric generation – largely from coal-fired power plants – which accounts for 38 percent of carbon dioxide emissions;

If we were to clean up these two areas, we would go a long way toward our goal of containing temperature increases to 1 or 2 degrees.

Let's begin with transportation. Fundamentally, there are two ways to reduce transportation emissions.

1. improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles.

2. move away from oil and gasoline-based fuels and toward alternatives.

Cars and trucks in the United States produce nearly 1.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year -- 20 percent of U.S. emissions, and half of global passenger-vehicle emissions. (EPA)

The good news is that the technology exists to significantly improve the fuel economy of these vehicles.

The bad news is that Detroit and many foreign auto manufacturers refuse to utilize available technologies to produce increased mileage and better fuel economy.

I have introduced legislation that would require the mileage for all cars, pick-up trucks, and SUVs be increased from 25 to 35 miles per gallon over the next 10 years. Twelve Senators have cosponsored the legislation.

If this bill becomes law:

* 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented from entering the atmosphere by 2025, the equivalent of taking 90 million cars off the road in one year.

* 2.5 million barrels of oil a day would be saved by 2025. By coincidence, this is the amount of oil imported daily from the Persian Gulf.

So, if the fuel economy of vehicles is increased, it will be a major step in the right direction.

The other side of the coin is alternative fuels.

As long as our nation continues its addiction to oil, we cannot sufficiently slow the warming trend. Rather, we quickly need to get up and running on developing new, clean technologies and alternative fuels.

This includes the electric plug-in hybrid, bio-diesel fuels, hydrogen power, and E-85 made from cellulosic ethanol.

Thirty-seven million gallons of biodiesel were produced in 2004 in the United States. And that number more than doubled to 75 million gallons in 2005.

But additional incentives are still needed in both the public and private sector to move much more aggressively toward producing and using alternative fuels.

The second major piece of the puzzle is the generation and consumption of electricity. And the biggest culprit here is pulverized coal.

Today, coal-fired power plants in 38 states are the largest source of carbon dioxide in America. Coal, alone, produces about 30 percent of annual carbon-dioxide emissions, or 2.1 billion tons every year.

Globally, coal produces 9.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year – or one-third of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

It's absolutely critical that we find ways to clean up coal or find alternatives.

Earlier this year, the Senate Energy Committee held a conference on the way forward on global warming.

The clear consensus was that a mandatory cap-and-trade system was the most effective way to prompt changes in energy production, especially with regard to pulverized coal plants.

I'm working on legislation to do this – creating a national framework for coal plants, utilities and other carbon dioxide producers to reduce greenhouse gases.

Here's how it would work:

A cap on the amount of critical global warming gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide – would be established on all major emitters.

In all likelihood, the cap would remain at present levels for a period of time to allow companies to change their operations.

Gradually, these caps would be tightened, until the desired level is reached.

Coal plants would have two ways to meet the cap: either implement new technologies, or purchase credits from other companies that have reduced their emissions below the target cap.

(A credit essentially is an allowance to emit a ton of greenhouse gases.)

So, the cap would be met—and national levels of carbon dioxide would be reduced.

Peter Darbee, the CEO of PG&E, agrees that we need to act now, and PG&E is helping us with the necessary modeling and analysis of a practical and doable program.

One of the key elements of our program is that it allows farmers and foresters to participate and earn credits for emission reductions through green practices.

These include: * tilling land less frequently; * planting trees on vacant land; and * converting crops into bio-fuels.

Farmers and growers would be able to earn dollars for acres converted to carbon sequestration and reduction.

Details are still being worked out, but a properly implemented cap-and-trade program can work. Here's an example:

Using the Clean Air Act, cap and trade was implemented in the 1980s to target sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electric utility plants in the northeast, the primary culprits of acid rain.

In the 16 years it has been in place, sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by about 34 percent (5 million tons) and nitrogen oxide emissions have been reduced by 43 percent (3 million tons). So cap and trade has been used and it has been effective.

But cleaning up electric generation is not enough. America needs to become much more energy efficient.

Residential and commercial buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. energy use. And an aggressive energy efficiency program could prevent as much as 1.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide going into the air.

For example, if all new construction and major retrofits were required to incorporate energy efficient building materials – such as insulation, more efficient windows, and renewable technologies like solar or wind, a significant reduction of carbon dioxide would result.

Green construction is also cost-effective. An initial $100,000 investment can result in a savings of $1 million or more over the life of the building. (California Sustainable Building Task Force)

Another example: incentivizing the purchase of energy efficient appliances.

ENERGY STAR home products, such as air conditioners, furnaces, refrigerators, dishwashers, phones, DVD players, and televisions, must become a standard buying practice for all Americans.

In 2005, these products saved consumers $12 billion, and reduced emissions by nearly 5 percent, an amount equal to taking 23 million cars off the road.

Energy Efficiency Can Make a Difference

In California, energy use per person has not gone up in the past 20 years, while national energy use has skyrocketed by 50 percent. To be specific, Californians use 6,000 kilowatts a year per person, while the national average is 12,000 kilowatts. (California Energy Commission)

Last September, the State announced a $2 billion energy efficiency and conservation program to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 3.8 million tons by 2008.

That is equivalent of reducing California's electricity emissions by 3.5%, or taking 650,000 cars off the road.

California's program can and should be replicated on a national level.

Individuals can also make a difference. Here are a few suggestions, all of which save energy and retard carbon dioxide emissions:

* Cool the hot water heater down by 10 degrees. That would save 660 pounds of carbon dioxide per household from being emitted into the air. If every household were to do it, California alone would avoid emitting 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide.

* Wash four out of five loads of laundry in cold water. That avoids 460 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 2.7 million tons for all of California.

* Run the dishwasher only with a full load. That avoids 200 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 1.2 million tons for all of California.

* Turn the air conditioner thermostat up a single degree. That avoids 220 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 1.3 million tons for all of California.

* Carpool 2 days a week. That avoids 1,590 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 9.2 million metric tons for all of California.

* Keep car tires properly inflated. That avoids 250 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 1.5 million tons for all of California.

All of these are easy to do and they can make a difference.

Global Warming Legislation

It is doubtful, in the short time remaining in this legislative session, that we will see action on global warming.

So in January, on the first day of the new Congress, I plan to bring to introduce these three bills:

* A sound mandatory cap and trade program, which could reduce emissions by 10 percent or more by 2025;

* A mandatory requirement that all passenger vehicles – cars, SUVs and light trucks – have increased mileage of 10 percent within the next 10 years. That means mileage would go from 25 miles per gallon today to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2017.

* A national energy efficiency program -- modeled after what California has achieved, including strict appliance and building standards and requiring utilities to use energy efficiency measures to meet a portion of their demand.

International Action

Finally, the U.S. should make addressing global warming a top priority and join the European Union and other nations in reducing emissions.

Kyoto is certainly not perfect, and it will expire in 2012. But the U.S. needs to be a leader to ensure that there is a framework in place after 2012 to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The U.S. should also lead an effort with China to raise a public-private partnership fund of $100 billion to prioritize global warming projects that can be conducted bilaterally.

Today, the U.S. and China are the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases. For China, reliance on coal remains chiefly responsible for its carbon dioxide output.

In fact, China's coal use outpaces that of the U.S., EU, and Japan combined. Coal accounts for 70 percent of China's energy needs. And consumption is increasing by 14 percent annually.

So a private/public partnership that funds key carbon dioxide reduction projects on a bilateral basis would be an effective way for our countries to work together. This proposal was made at the Aspen Strategy Group symposium a few weeks ago and it had a very positive response.

Example of Great Britain

Taken together, the policies I've outlined tonight can make a significant difference. You have to look no further than across the Atlantic Ocean to see what can be accomplished.

Already Great Britain has brought its emissions to 14 percent below 1990 levels.

They've done this through a comprehensive program requiring commercial electricity suppliers to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2010, making grants available for the installation of renewable sources, and providing incentives for the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels.

The Senate passed a similar bill last year, but, unfortunately, it was dropped in conference by the Republican majority. I will work with Senator Bingaman, the bill's sponsor, on moving this again next year.

California Leading the Way

The good news is that California has entered into a groundbreaking partnership with Great Britain to address climate change by sharing of best practices on how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

And this is just one part of the State's efforts to take the lead on global warming.

Additionally, the State has enacted a law requiring a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from the tailpipes of passenger vehicles by 2016. This will help the State reduce emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Ten other States have followed California's lead, and Canada has adopted similar regulations.

California is also considering legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions further -- to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020.

And earlier this month, Los Angeles joined the Clinton Climate Initiative, along with 21 of the world's largest cities to create an international consortium to reduce costs on energy-efficient products and share ideas on cutting greenhouse gas pollution.

With every challenge comes a new opportunity, and California is well positioned to take advantage of a new low-carbon economy.

The State has already begun to reap the economic benefits of cleaner, greener, and more efficient technologies and standards.

For example, substantial venture capital funding is available today for clean energy projects. And these new start-ups are expected to generate between 48,000 and 75,000 new jobs over the next five years. (Environmental Entrepreneurs Study)

Here are just a few of the most promising:

* A Silicon Valley start-up -- Ion America -- has raised $165 million to develop clean fuel cells that will produce both electricity and hydrogen to fuel our vehicles.

* Bill Gates has joined with venture capitalist, Vinod Khosla -- who as I previously mentioned is in the audience tonight -- to spearhead investment efforts in ethanol plants which, when completed, will produce 220 million gallons by 2009.

* And others are investing in new ideas – inexpensive solar panels, windmills that can be built in your backyard for $10,000, and geothermal energy that harnesses the heat of the Earth.

So California is leading the way, but as large as California is, we need to see national leadership and strong national mandates and incentives to do what needs to be done.

Time to Act

Working together, I believe we can reduce our emissions sufficiently to stabilize the Earth's climate, to minimize warming, and slow global temperature increases to 1-2 degrees to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Here is what I ask of you.

Be energy conscious.

Bring pressure on your utility, your government, and commit yourself and your family to reduce energy consumption.

Don't shift the burden to the next generation.

The choice is clear.

It is time to stop talking and to begin acting.

Truly,

Technorati Tags: green, climate change, economics, energy, pollution, global warming, environment, faith

Hurricanes Connect..

Reporting a study by James Elsner at Florida State University, Jim Loney for Reuters on 15/08/2006, gets the connection between hurricanes and global warming. And, in the process, takes a good look at alternative explanations that others have tried to establish. The study is adding greater precision to others of the same inclination, all of whom amount to increasing certainty of cause and effect. An appropriate start point to effectively dealing to it...

Global warming is affecting the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes, according to a new study by a university professor in Florida who says his research provides the first direct link between climate change and storm strength.

James Elsner of Florida State University said he set out to perform a statistical analysis of the two theories in a raging debate within the scientific community: Whether recent intense hurricanes are the result of climate change or natural ocean warming and cooling cycles.

"Is the atmosphere forcing the ocean or the ocean forcing the atmosphere?" Elsner asked.

The issue has a wide-ranging impact on insurance companies, municipal planners, some 50 million residents of hurricane-prone U.S. coastal communities and millions of others in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean islands.

The 2005 hurricane season produced 28 tropical storms and hurricanes, shattering the old record of 21 set in 1933.

Four of the hurricanes were Category 5, the strongest on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale. One of those, Wilma, was the most intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded.

The season also produced Katrina, which killed more than 1,300 people and caused about $80 billion in damage when it swamped New Orleans and other parts of the U.S. Gulf coast.

Elsner looked at 135 years of records to examine the statistical connection between Atlantic sea surface temperatures and air temperatures near the sea surface, and then compared them to records of hurricane intensities.

Atlantic hurricanes draw their energy from the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.

He found that average air temperatures during hurricane season between June and November were useful in predicting sea surface temperatures, but not the other way around.

"It appears that atmospheric warming comes before sea warming," he said, indicating that hurricane damage will be likely to continue increasing because of greenhouse warming.

The study was scheduled to be published August 23 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Many hurricane researchers say the Atlantic basin moved into a period of increased hurricane activity about a decade ago and predicted it could last 25 to 40 years.

Some say it is due to a natural fluctuation in sea surface temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But a growing body of research indicates human-induced global warming -- driven by heat-trapping gases in air pollution from cars and factories -- could be heating sea water, which in turn fuels stronger hurricanes.

Elsner described himself as "sympathetic" to the idea of human-induced global warming but said his research merely tried to determine whether there was a link between climate change and intense hurricanes.

"I think there are ocean currents that warm and cool the oceans," he said. "But it's not clear that kind of change is a multidecadal change and I'm not clear that there is a strong natural variability in the Atlantic."

Truly,

Technorati Tags: faith, oceans, environment, climate change, hurricanes, global warming, news

Predictive Research for Climate..

On 15th August the Guardian published an article which attempted a realistic answer to what the world would look like of Global Warming were to continue and the global average temperature increase 3 degrees centigrade(celsius). This article follows and really does spell out authoritatively that doing nothing is not a conscionable option.. I am indebted to RossG(at)heatisonline for his tip of this report..

Researchers See Disastrous Impacts from a 3-Degree Rise

Highlights incl:

* 3C increase would bring fires, floods and famine
* Climate prediction most comprehensive so far

More than half of the world's major forests will be lost if global temperatures rise by an average of 3C or more by the end of the century, it was claimed yesterday. The prediction comes from the most comprehensive analysis yet of the potential effects of human-made global warming.

Extreme floods, forest fires and droughts will also become more common over the next 200 years as global temperatures rise owing to climate change, according to Marko Scholze of Bristol University. Dr. Scholze took 52 simulations of the world's climate over the next century, based on 16 different climate models, grouping the results according to varying amounts of global warming they predicted by 2100: less than 2C on average, 2C-3C and more than 3C. He then used the simulations to work out how the world's plants would be affected over the next few hundred years. The results were published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Alan O'Neill, science director for the National Centre for Earth Observation, said: "Some work in this area has been done before looking at the meteorological forecasts for climate change and feeding those into vegetation models ... this is a much more comprehensive study."

He added that Dr. Scholze's results would give climate scientists the most accurate scientific projection yet of the future effects of global warming.

Dr. Scholze said the effects of a 2C category were inevitable. This is the temperature rise that will happen, on average, even if the world immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases. This scenario predicts that Europe, Asia, Canada, central America and Amazonia could lose up to 30% of its forests.

A rise of 2C-3C will mean less fresh water available in parts of west Africa, central America, southern Europe and the eastern US, raising the probability of drought in these areas. In contrast, the tropical parts of Africa and South America will be at greater risk of flooding as trees are lost. Dr. Scholze says a global temperature rise of more than 3C will mean even less fresh water. Loss of forest in Amazonia and Europe, Asia, Canada and central America could reach 60%.

A 3C warming could also present a yet more dangerous scenario where the temperatures induce plants to become net producers of carbon dioxide. "As temperatures go up, plants like it better and they start to grow more vigorously and start to take up more carbon dioxide from the air," Dr. O'Neill said. "But there comes a point where the take-up is saturated for a given vegetation cover, then the ecosystem starts to respire more than it's taking up."

Dr. Scholze's work shows that this so-called "tipping point" could arrive by the middle of this century. His scenarios echo research from the UK's Hadley Centre, a world leader in climate change modelling. In a report published last year called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, scientists at the centre predicted that a 3C rise in average temperatures would cause a worldwide drop in cereal crops of between 20m and 400m tonnes, put 400 million more people at risk of hunger, and put up to 3 billion people at risk of flooding and without access to fresh water supplies.

In May, David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, warned that the world's temperature would rise by 3C, causing catastrophic damage around the world, unless governments took urgent action to reduce carbon emissions.

Dr. Scholze said his work could help to define the concept of dangerous climate change for policymakers. "Dangerous is very objective. We tried to define a dangerous level and see what the risks are," he said. In his definition, climate change becomes dangerous when an event - such as extreme flooding or heatwaves - that only happened once every 100 years becomes one that happens every 10 years.

He added that a rise of 3C was not inevitable. "We can't just do what we do at the moment, what we call business as usual. We have a few decades - we have to do something before 2040."

Burning issue

At the rate we are burning fossil fuels, global temperatures could easily increase by more than the 3C rise that Marko Scholze's research warns could increase flooding, forest fires and droughts. A 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said an increase of between 1.4 and 5.8C by 2100 would be caused if current carbon emissions continue.

Global sea levels would rise by between 0.09 and 0.88 metres as a result. Scientists at the UK Climate Impacts Programme predict that a 3C rise or above would reduce rain on the south coast to half of current levels, by more than 40% across the rest of England and 30% in Scotland.

Sea levels could be 70cm higher in the south and there would be a 17-fold increase in flooding on the east coast. London could face a £25bn clean-up bill after a storm surge that would overwhelm the Thames barrier.

Truly,

Technorati Tags: energy, oceans, climate change, faith, environment, global warming, news

Faster Melt Rate = Higher Seas

In this timely report - 11/08/2006 - from the San Francisco Chronicle, David Perlman covers the very latest observation and measurements from two orbiting satellites. Ice melt loss changes landscape properties and yield measurable differences which translate directly into sea levels. Recommended as a good current roundup read...

Greenland's ice cap is melting at a frighteningly fast rate

The vast ice cap that covers Greenland nearly three miles thick is melting faster than ever before on record, and the pace is speeding year by year, according to global climate watchers gathering data from twin satellites that probe the effects of warming on the huge northern island.

The consequence is already evident in a small but ominous rise in sea levels around the world, a pace that is also accelerating, the scientists say.

According to the scientists' data, Greenland's ice is melting at a rate three times faster than it was only five years ago. The estimate of the melting trend that has been observed for nearly a decade comes from a University of Texas team monitoring a satellite mission that measures changes in the Earth's gravity over the entire Greenland ice cap as the ice melts and the water flows down into the Arctic ocean.

"We have only been watching the ice cap melt during a relatively short period," physicist Jianli Chen said Thursday, "but we are seeing the strongest evidence of it yet, and in the near future the pace of melting will accelerate even more."

The same satellites tracking Greenland's ice cap also are monitoring the melt rate of Antarctica's ice cover, and there too the melting is adding to the global rise in sea level, according to another team of scientists.

Next to Antarctica, Greenland is the largest reservoir of fresh water on Earth and holds about 10 percent of the world's supply. The increasing flow of fresh water -- most of it from glaciers melting on Greenland's eastern coast -- is already beginning to change the composition of the ocean's salt water currents flowing past Northwestern Europe, the scientists say.

The result could be a critical change in the composition of the main ocean current that flows past Europe's northern edge, blocking off warmer waters that normally flow there and -- ironically -- making Northern Europe's weather colder than normal, at least temporarily, while the rest of the globe continues warming.

The report on Greenland is being published today in the on-line edition of the journal Science by the University of Texas scientists at Austin, including Chen, aerospace engineer Byron Tapley and geologist Clark Wilson.

According to the researchers, surface melting of Greenland's ice cap reached 57 cubic miles a year between April of 2002 and November of 2005, compared to about 19 cubic miles a year between 1997 and 2003.

"The sobering thing is to see that the whole process of glacial melting is stepping up much more rapidly than before," said Tapley in a statement.

If the Greenland ice cap ever melted completely -- a highly unlikely event, at least in the foreseeable future -- the scientists estimate it would raise world's sea level by an average of 6.5 meters, or about 21 feet, more than enough to drown all the world's low-lying islands and even some entire nations, like Holland.

The possibility of future sea level rises becomes even more evident when Antarctica's huge ice sheets are considered.

Only last March two University of Colorado physicists used the same satellite system to measure melting of ice on the Antarctic continent. Although earlier evidence using other techniques appeared to show that the East Antarctica ice sheet was actually thickening, satellite data gathered by Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr at Boulder found that melting -- primarily from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet -- had turned at least 36 cubic miles of ice to fresh water each year from 2002 to 2005.

A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- known as the IPCC -- estimated that during all of the past century worldwide melting ice from global warming had raised sea levels by only two-tenths of a millimeter a year, or about 20 inches for the entire century.

But, according to Chen and his Texas team, the melting of Greenland's ice cap is already raising global sea levels by six-tenths of a millimeter each year, and the Colorado group estimates that melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone is adding up to four-tenths of a millimeter of fresh water to sea levels each year. In other words, the global sea level, due to melting of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica combined, is already rising 10 times faster than the IPPC's tentative estimates, the two analyses indicate.

Both the Texas and Colorado groups have been obtaining their data from two satellites known as GRACE, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, which fly in orbit 137 miles apart and determine with extraordinary accuracy just how the mass of even small regions of the Earth change as ice melts and flows away from the land to the sea.

The GRACE satellite mission is due to end next year, but the Texas team is awaiting NASA approval for a new and improved satellite system to continue the work, using laser beams rather than microwaves to measure ice cap melting, Chen said.

In a recent summary of the ice cap melting problem and its effect on sea levels reported by Richard Kerr in Science, geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton said, "The time scale for future loss of most of an ice sheet may not be millennia," as glacier models have suggested, "but centuries."

Truly,

Technorati Tags: energy, oceans, climate change, faith, environment, global warming, news

International Heavyweights back GW Initiative..

Last week the symbolic meeting of California's Governor Schwarzenegger and the UK's PM Blair. Soon after my posting on the sizeable stumbling block the Governor faced in pushed through 'cap and trade' legislation against the apparent wishes of his State's Chamber of Commerce and various Manufacturers' Groups. Voluntary they prefer, but voluntary they do not(so far). Which suggests that only $$s may persuade them to take the issues seriously. Greed this may be, a sort of expectation of reward for obdurate behavior. But go along with it and next time.. Actually there may not be a next time. Because in this scenario time is on nobody's side. That aside, there were some sizeable heavyweights in the business world behind the international initiative as the following article makes clear. It is Don MacDonald penning a major piece for the Montreal Gazette — Published: Monday, August 07, 2006

Concerns about climate change reach boiling point

Here's a piece of news to put your mind at ease: The Terminator and Phony Tony are teaming up to save the planet.

That was the upshot of a California summit between governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and British Prime Minister Tony Blair the other day.

These two politicians may be down in the polls in their respective jurisdictions, but they still have a nose for what's hot with the voters. And what's hot this summer is global warming.

A confluence of events has brought public concern about global warming, or climate change if you prefer, to the boiling point. Not the least of these developments - at least for Schwarzenegger and Blair - is that Californians and Britons have been suffering through some of the hottest temperatures on record this summer.

Of course, heat waves don't prove a thing about climate change, no more than a devastating hurricane season does.

But this year's heat and the destruction left by last year's Hurricane Katrina have put the public in a receptive mood for climate-change science, especially when it's presented as persuasively as in Al Gore's documentary film An Inconvenient Truth.

Put it all together and you've got the makings of a political wave powerful enough to roll over remaining global-warming deniers.

Certainly, Schwarzenegger and Blair sense a political winner even if it means doing an end-run around their common ally, U.S. President George W. Bush.

The Bush administration has resisted strong action on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.

Schwarzenegger and Blair signed an agreement to make Britain and California partners in looking for ways to fight climate change.

Just as interesting as the Schwarzenegger-Blair hook-up was their meeting with about 20 executives from top global corporations about climate change.

On hand for the meeting was John Browne, chief executive of energy giant BP, DuPont chief executive Charles Holliday and Virgin Atlantic billionaire Richard Branson.

Companies around the world, including the likes of Montreal's Alcan Inc. and Bombardier Inc., are scrambling to get out in front on the global warming issue by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions even before they are forced to do so by governments.

Public-relations considerations are obviously playing a role in the trend.

But companies are motivated to act on global warming by a force far more powerful than PR - pressure from their largest shareholders.

For the fourth year, the Carbon Disclosure Project, representing institutional investors around the world, is asking the largest public corporations to report on what they are doing to respond to the risks and opportunities posed by climate change.

For the first time this year, the top 300 Canadian companies by market capitalization are among the 1,900 companies worldwide that have been asked to provide information.

The project is being backed by 211 institutional investors with $31 trillion U.S. in assets, including such large Canadian institutional investors as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan and three of the big banks.

Large investors like pension funds are getting on board because "they recognize that environmental and social issues do have the potential to pose material risks to their investment portfolios and affect long-term returns," said David Greenall, a senior research associate at the Conference Board who is co-ordinating the Canadian portion of the study.

"They just view this as prudent investing."

Risks to the bottom line include both costs to comply with government regulation to reduce emissions and the potential physical impacts of global warming such as high temperatures, extreme weather events and changes in precipitation patterns.

"We believe shareholders will be looking for companies to manage this potential liability ... because if they're not, the costs could be significantly more than they would otherwise have to be," said Don Wharton, director of sustainable development at power company TransAlta Corp., Canada's No.1 emitter of greenhouse gases.

TransAlta, which has a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2024, was a Canadian pioneer in purchasing carbon credits.

With surprising speed, global climate change has become an issue no politician, CEO or investor can afford to ignore.

Truly,

Technorati Tags: global warming, environment, faith, news, climate change, Carbon dioxide, pollution, business, energy

THAILAND :: Gets 'Truth'

An interesting event not least because it takes Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" out of the politicized and polarised context of the USA and puts it before a movie-gong nation said to be addicted to entertainment. The following account from the Nation(Thailand) amply illustrates human potential..

Bangkok premiere for film predicting disaster if global warming not arrested

As unprecedented floods hit Chiang Mai and several other areas in the north last week, a new film premiered in Bangkok on Wednesday that serves as a warning of future weather catastrophes if human beings don't address the problem of climate change.

"An Inconvenient Truth", featuring former United States vice president Al Gore, examines the possible consequences of global warming and future weather-related disasters for mankind.

The movie's director, Davis Guggenheim, took a crew to film Gore on his one-man-show tour of the US. The audience sees Gore talking to the public about the dangers of climate change, with the former vice president portrayed in various moods from serious to light-hearted.

What makes the documentary fascinating is the presentations and effective use of imagery. Various graphic techniques, including animation and satellite pictures, maintain the excitement for two hours. There are real scenes of colliding icebergs at the North Pole and a simulation of New York and parts of Asia submerged under rising seas.

There is dramatic impact on a personal level too, as Gore explains his anger over climate change and why he decided to campaign on this issue after defeat by George W Bush in the US presidential election.

Gore sends a message to audiences that the climate of this planet is in crisis due to the release of hydrocarbon gases into the atmosphere. Many of the world's natural ecosystems, including ocean currents and rain patterns, are changing, he says, and if the forecasts of the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have only 10 years left to reverse the problem.

Gore says we are sitting on a time bomb, although there is still time to defuse it, but only if we start now.

Only two big countries, the United States and Australia, have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at solving the climate crisis, Gore says in the film.

Taken at face value "An Inconvenient Truth" might not be expected to succeed at the box office because the subject is serious and complicated. Gore is the only star of the film, and his role is like that of a presenter on stage. Yet the Thai audience reaction after last Wednesdays' media screening was positive, as it has been in the US.

"As a documentary film, it is great. It discusses this serious issue understandably for the general public without background on global warming. I really like it," said Thida Palitpholkarnphim, a film critic for Bioscope magazine.

"Everyone should watch this film, especially kids. For Thai politicians, it is a good chance to learn what a good politician looks like. Thai activists should learn from this great example of communicating a serious issue to the public," Thida said.

"I like the way the film is produced. It introduces the problem and [explains] what the crisis is and how we can solve it," Thida added.

Another audience member, Noppamas (who gave no surname), said she had been looking forward to the film since talking to friends in the US who had told her it had made a great impact there.

"Some of my friends decided to install solar cells the morning after watching it. One manager paid for tickets for all of his staff to make sure everyone in his office saw it," she said.

Singer Su Boonliang said the film was a clever way to educate the public on climate change, especially Thais, who were addicted to entertainment.

"I would like to see more such films," he said.

"I like the message of the film. It says this is a crisis but we must not panic and we still have time to solve it," said Dr Anond Snidvong, a scientist at Chulalongkorn University.

Supamas Wungthamkua, a marketing manager for United International Pictures, which brought the film to Thailand, said the response had been positive in Thailand and the company planned to put it on general release at the end of August. Thailand will be the second country to show the film, she said.

"We did not expect great profit from this film as we know it is not normal entertainment but a documentary, which is not familiar to many Thais, but we decided to import it due to its content, and we wanted to give our audiences more alternatives," she said.

"In the US the reaction has been great, and it is more successful in terms of income than most documentary films," she said.

"Yes, the film may be pro-Al Gore, but I don't think this is an issue in Thailand as Thais cannot vote for him," Supamas added.

Thara Buakhamsri, a member of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, one of the screening's organisers, said the film was about ethics and morals rather than politics.

Greenpeace is planning other popular campaign activities, Thara said.

"Public education is necessary to move Thai society toward concern over climate change. We had to find a path to teach the public about this issue, and movies and music are our chosen methods," he said.

"Soon we will launch new songs about climate change and other environmental issues," he added.

The songs will be written by groups of Thai musicians led by American singer Todd Lavelle, better known to Thais as Todd Thongdee.

A better understanding of global warming is important and is a key for the right political decision-making, Thara said.

"Thai politicians show very little understanding of this global issue, even though it is important and related to many development projects in our country.

"In Vientiane last weekend the development of coal-power projects, one main cause of global warming, was still on the agenda of the Asean energy ministers' meeting, and there was less commitment to renewable energy sources," Thara said.

According to an official source, the Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Thailand's authority on climate change, has requested that the government put climate change on the national agenda.

The office proposed tackling the problem months ago, but there has been no positive sign that the Cabinet will pick it up for consideration, the source told The Nation.

Climate expert Anond, who has studied the impact of global warming on Thailand for years, said disasters would continue to hit the country but with greater regularity and magnitude than previously forecast.

"More extreme events are expected. Serious flash-floods and mud slides could happen easily in many areas of the country as a result of changing rainfall patterns. Rain may be heavier in one particular area while others face long droughts," he said.

"In the Gulf of Thailand we found large areas where the sea is warmer than average, and recently in the Andaman Sea we found sea level rising faster than normal at a rate of 8-12 millimetres per year, and there is rapid erosion of the shore at a rate of 1-2 centimetres per year," he warned.

Truly,

Technorati Tags: environment, energy, movies, climate change, global warming, faith, Al Gore

China's Cut in Coal Prospect

Securing a steady supply of energy is crucial for China to keep driving its economic engine, but the price for explosive growth has often been paid by its environment. So a deal between a major Chinese energy group and the World Bank to supply environmentally friendly fuel is looking all the more attractive, not just to conservationists but also to the wider business community sensitive to ballooning global energy prices. This report by Shihoko Goto for UPI's business readers kicks off with a deal struck on Wednesday between the International Finance Corporation -- the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group -- and China's Xinao Group to buy shares worth up to $10 million in the company, in addition to providing a $40 million loan for a plant that will convert coal into dimethyl ether. Xinao will also access loans up to $140 million from commercial banks to build petrochemical facilities that will produce up to 600,000 tons of methanol, the bulk which will be brought in from Inner Mongolia. That methanol will be used to produce about 400,000 tons of DME each year..

DME reportedly emits 40 percent less carbon dioxide than regular fuel, and does not produce black carbon, which contributes far more to the problem of global warming than carbon dioxide. Currently, about 70 percent of the country's energy is derived from coal -- spurring China to look for cleaner, less harmful energy sources; about 25 percent of the global output of black carbon emissions originate in China.

Coal is the most readily available and cheapest energy source in China, yet mining for the resource is not only dangerous for miners, but it also causes considerable environmental damage, in addition to releasing toxic fumes when used indoors. Indeed, more than 1 billion Chinese die from air pollution each year, with over 60 percent of those deaths occurring as a result of indoor smog, according to the bank.

"This project will help develop new resources to meet China's energy demand and will do so in an environmentally friendly way. Replacing coal with a clean fuel for household cooking and heating has clear health benefits," said the IFC's executive vice president, Lars Thunell, at a news briefing following the agreement signing with the bank's president, Paul Wolfowitz. "As the private sector plays a larger role in China's economy, it is important that leading private companies adopt sustainable business strategies," Thunell said.

Xinao Chairman Wang Yusuo said that the deal will be as much about profits as it will be about protecting the environment.

"DME is a clean fuel ... that can replace diesel," Wang said, and added that the shift toward DME use by public transportation and household use should eventually decrease China's dependency on oil and natural gas, an objective that has been highlighted by the Communist Party.

"With this project, Xinao is developing a clean energy source that has been idenitified by the Chinese government as a strategically important alternative to polluting fuel such as coal or diesel," Wang said. He declined, however, to specify how affordable the DME will be for consumers.

Yet therein lies the key for the success of the project. For while DME may be less damaging to the environment than coal, the ultimate aim will be to ensure that more people are using it over coal, which will depend on a number of factors including its affordability and availability in areas consumers are located.

The bank's director of the oil, gas, and mining department, Rashad Kaldany, pointed out that the agency will gauge how well the project is doing not simply by setting basic numerical targets, but also by monitoring how popular it becomes with consumers, how many jobs it creates, and see how it will affect lifestyles, particularly in energy-intensive cities.

Truly,

Technorati Tags: environment, business, economics, energy, pollution, innovation, global warming, faith