The Daily Climate: Obama's Commerce Pick Has Low Green Cred

Video: President Obama

Commerce Fox Guarding a Conservation Henhouse? Although President Obama's pick for Commerce Secretary helps build his bipartisan cred, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) looks like a risky choice for conservation and climate change action. Gregg has voted in the past to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and against funding conservation programs -- although he also worked to preserve New England wilderness. The Department of Commerce oversees many environmental functions, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Fisheries Service; the National Weather Service; the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and National Environmental Satellite Data. (Environmental News Service)

Danish Transit Treat: In its plan for spending on transit and transportation, the Danish government's approach will be "two-thirds green, one-third black." This means that of US$16 billion that will be spent on improving the nation's railways, roads, and bike lanes between now and 2020, most will go to projects like: Increasing the number of cyclists; improved bus traffic; improving access to public transit; and improved traffic safety. Around one-third will go to improving automobile roadways. In the US, by comparison, it's more "four-fifths black, one-fifth green." (The City Fix)

Clouds Form Over Solar, Wind: Between the credit crisis and and the overall recession, wind and solar power sales are falling fast, equipment prices are also dropping, and layoffs are starting. The number of banks willing to help finance installations of wind turbines and solar panels has fallen from 18 to 4, leaving developers hurting for capital. But industry members remain hopeful for the long term, since President Obama is focused on expanding the nation's renewable energy resources. (Green Inc. - The New York Times)

Seeing Peru for the Trees: Peru has launched a US$20 million national effort to plant 40 million trees -- enough to pull 570 thousand tons of carbon out of the atmosphere annually, the government says. The move will enable the country to sell carbon credits on the world market, create around 128 thousand temporary jobs, and perhaps 600 thousand permanent roles for "woods guardians." (Treehugger)

Video: President Obama Announces Sen. Judd Gregg as his pick for Secretary of Commerce, Feb. 3, 2009.

Obama acts on fuel efficiency, global warming

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. President Barack Obama set his green plan into action Monday, potentially reversing several Bush-era decisions on global warming and fuel efficiency.

U.S. President Barack Obama signs orders Monday on vehicle
emissions and fuel efficiency standards.

In his first major environmental acts as president, Obama directed his Environmental Protection Agency to review a California application to regulate greenhouse gases and told his Department of Transportation to begin implementing fuel efficiency standards passed last year but not implemented by the Bush administration.

He also pushed for passage of the $825 billion economic stimulus package in the House and Senate. Those bills include money for investments in renewable energy, conservation and a better electric grid.

"No single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy," Obama said at a White House news conference. "It is time for this moment of peril to be turned into one of progress."

California emissions: Under the Clean Air act, California has long sought to tighten its air quality standards.

To achieve those standards, California would likely require cars to emit fewer greenhouse gases. Currently the federal government does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions - the main culprit in greenhouse gases.

The Bush administration recently denied California's request saying that new federal fuel standards made stricter rules there unnecessary.

Obama said his administration will review that decision. Any change in policy would likely take months to implement.

"Let me be clear: Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry; it is to help America's automakers prepare for the future," said the president.

The environmental community applauded the move. New emission standards could result in vehicles that get better gas mileage.

"With these actions our new president is not just stepping up to the threat of climate chaos," Dave Hawkins, head of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote on his blog. "The cleaner cars he will help put on the road will show us the way to reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and will push automakers to make the cars that the world will want and need in the 21st century."

The auto industry, which has opposed California's effort to raise its air quality standards, said in the past it will result in an expensive patchwork of emissions standards and force them to build different cars for different markets.

Seventeen other states may adopt California's rules if the Obama administration allows it, representing over half the vehicle market.

On Monday General Motors said it is trying to make more efficient vehicles, but said any standard must be "workable."

"GM is working aggressively on the products and the advance technologies that match the nation's and consumer's priorities to save energy and reduce emissions," the company said in a statement to CNN. "We're ready to engage the Obama administration and the Congress on policies that support meaningful and workable solutions and targets that benefit consumers from coast to coast."

Chrysler had no comment, and Ford could not be reached.

It's possible automakers would simply make their entire fleet conform to the stricter standard - thus upping fuel efficiency standards for the whole nation.

It's also possible the auto industry would make different cars for different markets, perhaps not selling certain bigger cars in states that adopted the new standard.

Either way, most analysts said it would raise prices for everyone.

"Anytime you have to comply with two different sets of standards, it's more expensive," said Eric Fedewa of CSM Worldwide, an automotive research company.

Fedewa also said having two different standards could be a challenge for the auto industry at this time - they are currently losing money and have recently received billion in taxpayer support.

Federal fuel efficiency rules could be more easily relaxed if the industry had a hard time complying, he said.

"It's in our nation's best interest to be under a common strategy," he said.

Fuel efficiency standards: Regardless of what California does, Obama also moved to implement higher fuel efficiency standards passed in 2007.

Those increases - the first in more than 30 years - called for raising the average fuel economy from 27.5 miles a gallon for cars and 22 miles a gallon for trucks to 35 miles a gallon for the whole fleet by 2020.

Obama said the increased standards would save 2 million barrels of oil a day.

That's about 10% of the country's total oil consumption, and roughly the same amount the country currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

"This rule will be a downpayment on a broader and sustained effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said the president.

The new standards, originally supported by Bush, were put on hold during his last days in office, in response to the woes facing the auto industry.

The industry has long opposed raising fuel economy standards. It has argued that the new rules are expensive and unnecessary since it already makes fuel efficient cars.

Stimulus: Obama also called on Congress to pass the $825 billion stimulus plan currently under debate in both houses.

Tens of billions of dollars are allocated for energy programs under both plans.

The House version contains $20 billion in tax incentives for the industry that are intended to get money flowing back into a sector particularly hard hit by the financial crisis and help Obama meet his stated goal of doubling renewable energy production in the United States in three years.

It also contains $10 billion to modernize the countries aging electric grid, including money for a so-called smart grid.

The smart grid basically involves digitizing and connecting the country's aging utility grid.

Experts say it will result in greater efficiency because appliances will be able to turn on and off when electricity is cheapest, consumers will have more information about how much electricity they are using, and when and where they are using it.

The smart grid is also essential if various forms of renewable energy like wind and solar are to be used.

The House version of stimulus also calls for billion in conservation money for federal buildings, public housing, and homeowner incentives.

"America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes and a warming planet," said Obama. "This is the boost that our economy needs and the new beginning that our future demands."

Scientific Opinions on Man-Made Global Warming

A recent survey of 3,146 earth scientists, conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago, indicates that there is overwhelming consensus among those surveyed that in the past 200+ years mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The authors of the survey contacted over 10,200 experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Department to take part in the on-line poll, according to the EurekAlert article.

Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded.

The two questions were...........

1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90% of the total surveyed agreed with question #1, while 82% agreed with question #2.

For question #2, the authors broke it down by climatologists, petroleum geologists and meteorologists.........

97% of the climatologists agreed that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, while that figure was only 64% for meteorologists and 47% for the petroleum geologists.

The author, Peter Doran made an interesting quote about the meteorologists, which I, as a 20-year meteorologist, personally think is pretty much on target....."Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

Doran also made a point about the climatologists....."They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

---------------------------------------------

Even though the survey from above may be quite revealing, we also remember the latest 2008 U.S. Senate Minority report, which indicated that more than 650 international scientists now dissent over man-made global warming claims.

The updated report now found a total of 650 dissenting scientists and former UN IPCC scientists from around the globe that challenged man-made global warming claims by the IPCC and Al Gore.

I looked through the updated report, which shows the newest batch of man-made global warming dissenters and skeptics and found a variety of chemists, economists, biologists, geologists, physicists and meteorologists, including our own Mark Paquette (Page 61), from AccuWeather.com, who is a frequent contributer to this blog on the weekends. I was not aware he was on the list and I doubt he knew about it either, but I will let him know.

On a final note........

Congratulations and best of luck to the new Obama Administration!

Inauguration day and climate change politics

Inauguration day 2005: 35 °F Mostly cloudy with some sunny breaks.
Northwest wind 14 mph. Around 1″ of snow lay on the ground.
More inauguration day weather history is available here

There is much speculation about the weather on Tuesday, January 20th, which is the inauguration day of president Obama. Particularly it is being conjectured widely on the blogosphere that a colder than normal day might have some chilling effect on climate change thinking in Washington. After all, it is not unlike politicians to grasp onto ancillary topics and use them as the focal point for forming opinions.

For example, as reported here, The last time Dr. Roy Spencer testified before Congress, committee chair Barbara Boxer appeared more interested in discussing Rush Limbaugh than she did in discussing science. That is not necessarily a sensible way to weigh trillion dollar policy decisions.

Here is another example. When Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress in June, 1988, on the topic of global warming, Senator Timothy Wirth took several deliberate steps to make sure that the room was oppressively hot. This excerpt below is from a PBS Frontline interview:

TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.

That is going to be a lot tougher now, after two more decades of unprecedented global warming.

As of Saturday morning, NCEP is forecasting severe cold along the East Coast for the end of the month, and well below normal temperatures for the inauguration of president Obama. Perhaps the chill will freeze out some the early political rhetoric in Washington? Some prominent members of Congress now claim that they can legislate the climate, which requires that they also are able to control volcanoes, ocean circulation patterns, and solar activity.

Here is the NCEP CONUS temperature forecast for now to election day:

Click for a larger image

One wonders though, it the weather patterns were shifted west to east in the anomaly graph below, and we had a warmer than normal inauguration day in Washington, would it provide lawmakers with a personal confirmation bias much like that day in June, 1988?

Thanks to wattsupwiththat

Soot reduction 'could help to stop global warming'

Cutting one of humanity's most common pollutants would have immediate cooling effect, Nasa claims

Governments could slow global warming dramatically, and buy time to avert disastrous climate change, by slashing emissions of one of humanity's most familiar pollutants – soot – according to Nasa scientists. A study by the space agency shows that cutting down on the pollutant, which has so far been largely ignored by climate scientists, can have an immediate cooling effect – and prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from air pollution at the same time.

At the beginning of the make-or-break year in international attempts to negotiate a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the soot removal proposal – which is being taken seriously by experts close to the Obama administration – offers hope of a rapid new way of tackling global warming. Governments have long experience in acting against soot.

Cutting its emissions has a virtually instantaneous effect, because it rapidly falls out of the atmosphere, unlike carbon dioxide which remains there for over a hundred years. And because soot is one of the worst killers among all pollutants, radical reductions save lives and so should command popular and political support.

The study – from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics – concludes that tackling the pollution provides "substantial benefits for air quality while simultaneously contributing to climate change mitigation" and "may present a unique opportunity to engage parties and nations not yet fully committed to climate change mitigation for its own sake."

Black carbon, the component of soot that gives it its colour, is thought to be the second largest cause of global warming after carbon dioxide. Formed through incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, wood and vegetation, it delivers a double whammy.

While in the air, it is spread around the globe by the wind, and helps to heat the atmosphere by absorbing and releasing solar radiation. And when it falls out it darkens snow and ice, at the poles or high in mountains, reducing its ability to reflect sunlight. As a result it melts more quickly, and exposes more dark land or water which absorbs even more energy, and so increases warming.

The bad news – as the Washington-based Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development points out – is that soot is causing global warming to happen much faster than expected. Its president, Durwood Zaelke, says "black carbon is exacerbating the climate situation": "Taking quick action is quite simply our only near-term option."

Rich countries have already reduced their emissions of black carbon from burning fossil fuels dramatically since the 1950s. The health benefits of a worldwide cut could be massive. Soot contains up to 40 different cancer-causing chemicals and can also cause respiratory and heart diseases. It is estimated to cause two million deaths in the developing world each year – mainly among children – when emitted from wood-burning stoves in poorly ventilated houses. In Britain, research has shown that people are twice as likely to die from respiratory disease when heavily exposed to soot emitted from vehicle exhausts.

Tackling these two health crises, the Nasa study concludes, would also be the most effective short-term way of slowing climate change. Its research shows that the "strongest leverage" on reducing global warming would be achieved by "reducing emissions from domestic fuel burning" in developing countries, particularly in Asia, and by "reduction in surface transport emissions in North America", especially from diesel engines.

In both cases solutions are known. Cookers using solar energy or biogas, for example, eliminate smoke. And last month California brought in measures to force trucks to fit filters to reduce diesel soot emissions by 85 per cent, estimating that they would save 9,400 lives over the next 16 years.