Saul Griffith is an engineer, inventor, serial entrepreneur, and visionary thinker currently working at Makani Power, a renewable energy company he co-founded in San Francisco.

In this FORA.tv presentation given earlier this year at the Long Now Foundation, Griffith examines the numerical reality of the fight against climate change. Drawing from a personal assessment of his own energy needs, Griffith argues that we not only need to switch to alternative energies, we also need to drastically reduce their consumption in order to prevent a global catastrophe.

In this clip, Griffith lays out in hard numbers the need for a massive increase in "green" energy, and proposes how it can be achieved. The full program is recommended viewing and available on the FORA.tv website.

The US ranks next to last among G8 member countries when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and paving the way toward a clean energy economy, according to a World Wildlife Fund-Allianz SE study released July 1.

US greenhouse emissions have risen by almost 15% since 1990–the base reference year used in the voluntary CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets built into the UN Kyoto Protocol global climate change agreement–the main reason why the US ranks as low as it does among its peer group of developed, industrialized nations, according to the G8 Climate Scorecard.

Urging Action

“For too long, the U.S. has resisted action while other nations have begun the transition to a clean energy economy. Other nations have dramatically cut greenhouse gas pollution, set national targets, ramped up investments in energy technology and set regulatory frameworks to spark innovation in key sectors. And now other countries dominate markets in sustainable energy and technology," WWF president and CEO Carter Roberts stated in a media release.

Some Congressional representatives opposing the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009, which cleared the House of Representatives by a narrow margin last week demanded that other countries "first step up to the plate," Roberts noted.

"The truth is that not only has much of the rest of the world already been at the plate, they’re several innings into the game and we’re only now emerging from the dugout."

He urged senators to take up and pass the ACES forward for Pres. Obama's signing in time to prepare for the upcoming UN climate change agreement negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

“It is time for the U.S. to get into the game and make up for lost time. Passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act by the House on Friday took us a big step forward. We need the Senate to pass the bill, get it to the President before Copenhagen and give us the means to challenge other countries to work with us in solving this global problem,” Roberts said.

G8 Climate Scorecard

Using a variety of metrics, the study assesses and ranks the policies of G8 countries, including reduction or growth of greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, the percentage of a country's energy portfolio derived from renewable sources, and investments in clean energy technology.

No G8 member's efforts were sufficient to rank in the report's "Good" category. Ranking ahead of Canada and behind Russia, the next-to-last-place finish is actually a step up for the US, which has consistently ranked last in these annual reports, according to WWF. "Green" energy and economic stimulus included in federal emergency legislation late last year, a push in Congress to pass bills that would cut CO2 and GHG emissions reduction along with Pres. Obama's stated efforts to foster a new low carbon/clean energy economy boosted the US up one place in the ranking.

Germany ranked first in the study, followed by the United Kingdom and France. All three have cut their greenhouse gas emissions to the point where they have already met the voluntary reductions they agreed to try to meet as per the Kyoto Protocol.

The WWF-Allianz SE G8 Climate Scorecard report is available here.

California Air Resources Board will require some municipal landfill operators to capture methane gas

Earlier this week, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) passed a law requiring approximately 14 municipal landfills to capture methane gas – a precursor to ozone depletion and global warming. Methane gas is commonly created in landfills when solid waste decomposes.

The new law requires that landfills design and install equipment capable of capturing the gas by 2012. The Board estimates that of the state’s 367 solid waste landfills, approximately 218 will ultimately be impacted by the ruling.
ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols had this to say about the ruling per the ARB news release, "Fixing the leaks in existing landfill gas collection systems is a fast way to cut the methane gas that is directly harming the earth's atmosphere. Even better, we will see an immediate health benefit, because methane is a precursor to smog."

The new law is said to reduce 1.5 metric tons of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emitted from municipal landfill waste is California’s second largest contributor to methane.

Over the past 5 years, the waste management and dairy industries have managed to turn methane into a revenue stream. They’ve done this by converting it to electricity or destroying it to generate carbon offsets.

According to the U.S. EPA, methane gas is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Produced both naturally and by human activity, methane has a relatively short lifespan once released into the atmosphere. Most methane molecules are destroyed within 10 years of release into the atmosphere. “Methane has a global warming potential (GWP) of 23. This means that every kilogram of methane emitted to the atmosphere has the equivalent forcing effect on the Earth's climate of 23kg of carbon dioxide over a 100 year period,” says The Encyclopedia of Earth.

Signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, this weeks’ ARB ruling constitutes the final "early action measure" required under the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). AB32 mandates that by 2020, the state of California must have reduced their greenhouse gases by 25%.

Housed under the California EPA, ARB’s mission “is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering effects on the economy.”

Will other states follow suit?

After a hard-fought battle between the state of California (led by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) and the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush administration, that same agency in a new administration has now approved the waiver allowing California to regulate greenhouse has emissions from vehicle tailpipes.

For California to pursue more stringent pollution controls a waiver is required from the Environmental Protection Agency for the mandate to become enforceable. California requested the waiver in 2005, and was consistently denied by the Bush administration despite EPA staffers recommending it be approved, a recommendation initially supported by then EPA administrator Stephen Johnson. After an apparent intervention from Dick Cheney and the White House, Johnson refused to approve the waiver.

The California legislation requires cars to meet increased fuel efficiency standards of 35.5 miles-per-gallon by 2016, resulting in fewer CO2 emissions per vehicle mile driven.

Current EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement:

This decision puts the law and science first," adding that granting the request "is consistent with the Clean Air Act as it has been used for the last 40 years."

Governor Schwarzenegger said that the federal government has finally "stepped up" after years of being "asleep at the wheel."

Sources and further reading:
Red, Green, and Blue
San Francisco Chronicle
Associated Press

In the midst of the fight of our lives (the House floor debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act), a coalition of major U.S. groups called for the Obama Administration to outline its “yardstick” on global warming. What is it that this “scientific and pragmatic” Administration will use to measure our efforts to solve global warming pollution — its yardstick?

Well the CEOs of 47 U.S. organizations, representing environment, faith, development, and youth groups have an answer. As the letter from these groups to the Obama Administration says:

We are writing to urge you to work with other world leaders at the upcoming G8 Summit to set a strong science-based goal for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases aimed at keeping the increase of global average surface temperature, compared to pre-industrial levels, as far below 2 degrees Celsius/3.6 degrees Fahrenheit as possible.

The impacts of global warming will be potentially severe in a number of regions around the world, including the US, if we cross this threshold.

And it isn’t like these groups made up this “yardstick”. After all, it is the goal called for in the:

• climate and energy recommendations to the Obama transition team from the 29 largest U.S. environmental, conservation, and development organizations;
• American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that just passed the U.S. House of Representatives;
• Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, which Senator Obama co-sponsored;
• Principles of the National Council of Churches;
• Statements of a number leading climate scientists; and
• Positions of a large number of governments around the world.

Having a clear measure against which to judge progress will be central to ensuring that the American public continues to be bought into solving global warming. After all, the American people generally have a “can do” attitude. Once we fully get to grips with the problem, we want to solve it — not half way, but all the way.

So that is why having such an overarching “yardstick” as holding global temperatures to below a certain threshold is so critical — it frames why we are working to solve global warming. It will frame how we judge whether or not we are heading in the right direction or whether we need to do more.

Where President Obama stands on “two degrees” will be a consistent question when he attends the Group of Eight (G8) meeting in early July. Ambiguity breeds mistrust and on global warming the U.S. has had a lot of goodwill destroyed over the last 8 years — thanks to the efforts of the “unnamed Administration”. The Obama Administration and now the House of Representatives have made serious efforts to rebuild international trust on global warming. But not providing clarity on “two degrees” spurs mistrust as evidenced in a recent Reuters story about the Obama Administration not wanting to reference the 2 degrees Celsius objective in the G8 statement

So the letter from these 47 groups to President Obama as he is just about to embark on his G8 trip provides a simple recommendation — embrace 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degress Fahrenheit) as the U.S. yardstick on global warming. Don’t be separate from it any longer. Taking it as your own will help spur the U.S. public to action and build a huge amount international goodwill.

Coming out in support of this “yardstick” is a small, but hugely important signal to the American people and the world that we are truly committed to solving global warming.
——-
Jake Schmidt is the International Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, this article is cross-posted from his blog on NRDC's Switchboard

I use the hapless Senator's own hyperbolic language to help illustrate his latest and completely expected, given the House passage of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill last week, attempt to support his ever more untenable position as a leading climate change denier.

What is a little surprising is how Inhofe doesn't appear to learn any lessons from his past adventures in list building, scandal and fear mongering, and character assassination. Inhofe is either really not very bright, or purposely and cynically deceitful. Either option isn't pretty.

His latest fury comes from a "suppressed email" by Alan Carlin, an economist for the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics who drafted an unsolicited report questioning the need for regulation of CO2 and disputing the assertion of a scientific consensus on global warming. Carlin asked his superiors to consider his report when drafting the agency's endangerment finding on CO2 released earlier this year. According to NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, Carlin made a number of very basic errors in his scientific analysis, and in any case put forth nothing new, just a rehash of "right wing pseudoscience."

Jonathan Hiskes at Grist reports that, far from being "suppressed," the "scandalous" emails reveal little more than a management-employee dispute. Carlin's boss simply asked Carlin to get back to work on other things, being that his job at the EPA is that of economist, not climate scientist.

EPA press secretary Adora Andy issued the following statement:

Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”

As scandalous cover-ups go this is a bit of a yawner

That is, of course, until the likes of Senator Inhofe gets hold of the story, like a junkyard dog not letting go of a meatless bone that amounts to nothing.

Trotting onto co-conspirator Fox News to declare his vindication of his claims that "it's all phony," he sanctimoniously called for a "full investigation" to get to the bottom of the cover up.

As I said in the beginning, Infofe is either stupid or sly as a fox. I suspect he knows full well that there is nothing new in Carlin's claims (unless he isn't paying attention even to his own host of deniers and "skeptics"), and knows there is no suppression or cover-up. He is using the non-event as a means to further confuse the general public and enrage the Beck "they want to regulate my breathing" disciples in a desperate attempt to defeat Waxman-Markey as it goes to the Senate.

What is sad is that it just might work.

Inhofe has complained of his treatment in the press, and no doubt from bloggers like me (if he knew I existed, which for all I know, he may), saying he has a large family that "has to watch this".

The criticism he receives from the likes of me will pale in comparison of his shame when he tries to explain to his grandchildren why he cynically sold their future, and the future of their children and grandchildren, all in the name of perpetrating the largest hoax ever in the history of mankind.

Further reading:
EPA Exposed in Non Cover-up

Coal wreaks environmental havoc, from the coal mining that pollutes rivers and streams, to the premature deaths of coal miners from accidents and lung diseases, to the release of greenhouse gases, mercury and other toxins at power plants. Pictured: A coal-fired power plant

Earthtalk is a weekly environmental column made available to our readers from the editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, “clean” coal really isn’t—yet the Bush Administration gushed strongly for it. What is Obama’s take on it? - John Zippert, Eutaw, AL

Barack Obama and George W. Bush differ in many ways, but both have embraced so-called “clean coal” for providing an ongoing supply of cheap and readily available energy for electricity generation.

The term “clean coal” is loosely defined as coal that is washed or processed to remove pollutants, so as to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading greenhouse gas, when the coal is burned. Coal-burning plants emit 40 percent of U.S. CO2 pollution—half of our electricity comes from coal—so reducing the industry’s carbon footprint in any way possible would be a big win for the environment.

Luckily for clean coal advocates, the White House has been and continues to push for its development. George W. Bush’s support for clean coal dates back to his first term in office, when he stated that such technologies should be encouraged as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil. And since taking office, the Obama administration has committed $3.4 billion in stimulus dollars to clean coal projects.

But green groups continue to question the wisdom of relying on coal at all. Coal wreaks environmental havoc, from the coal mines that pollute rivers and streams, to the premature deaths of coal miners from accidents and lung diseases, to the release of greenhouse gases, mercury and other toxins at power plants.

According to Greenpeace, burning coal emits 29 percent more CO2 than does burning oil or natural gas. And coal-fired power plants are the world’s largest sources of atmospheric mercury, a known neurotoxin that disperses quickly throughout the environment and into the food chain. Greenpeace says that clean coal technologies will not address this problem, and that there are “no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.” Also, the group says, clean coal will do nothing to mitigate coal mining’s damage to wildlife habitat and drinking water sources.

There is no such thing as ‘clean coal’ and there never will be,” Dan Becker of the Sierra Club told the Grist.org website. “It’s an oxymoron.”

The Reality Coalition, a group of nonprofits that includes the Sierra Club, has been running TV ads seeking to debunk industry claims that coal can be clean. Green groups also worry that pushing clean coal will only delay the transition to a truly cleaner and greener energy infrastructure based on solar, wind and other emissions-free renewable energy sources.

In April of 2009, environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. questioned the motivations of Obama and other politicians who back clean coal. “The coal industry and the carbon industry in general are the largest contributors to the political process,” Kennedy told ABC News. “You don’t have politicians representing the American public, but rather the people who finance their campaigns.”

Of course, Obama’s support for clean coal doesn’t negate the fact that he has proposed spending much more on further development of alternative energy sources. He has called for getting 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025, and has committed upwards of $32 billion of stimulus dollars to the cause, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Environment America.

Contacts:
Greenpeace
Reality Coalition

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION?

• Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881
• Submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk[at]emagazine.com.
• Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Read past columns at the E Magazine website.

EarthTalk is now a book! Get details and ordering information

In a vote of 219-212 the House of Representatives passed the American Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill will cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide critical incentives and investment in clean energy development and "green collar" jobs. While far from perfect, the bill is the nation's best effort yet in coming to grips with climate change and transitioning from an unsustainable energy economy.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where another hard fight is expected before the bill will finally become law.

Statement from Sierra Club Exective Director Carl Pope

With today's historic vote, Congress has taken the first step toward unleashing a true clean energy revolution.  President Obama and tens of millions of environmentalists, union members, veterans, people of faith, small businesspeople, corporate leaders, sportsmen, and concerned citizens have been calling on Congress to get America running on clean energy.  Congress has finally answered that call.
"Speaker Pelosi, Chairmen Waxman and Markey, and many others deserve hearty congratulations for shepherding a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan to passage. For decades, they have been the strongest champions for our environment.  Without their extraordinary leadership, today's vote would not have possible.

"This bill sets the stage for the dawn of the clean energy future.  While imperfect, it sets forth a set of goals America must achieve — and exceed.  Its most important achievement is setting the United States on a path to reduce carbon emissions some 80 percent by 2050.  It also makes strides in halting international deforestation, requires new buildings to dramatically slash energy waste, will speed the development of made-in-America electric vehicles, and provides important protections for workers, consumers, and others who may be affected by our transition to a clean energy future.

"We urged the House to pass this bill so that we could work to strengthen it before it reaches President Obama's desk.  It is now of the utmost importance that the Senate improve several of its provisions.  In particular, a mechanism for cleaning up the oldest and dirtiest coal plants must be included in a final bill.  It's also vital that we ramp up the bill's investments in energy efficiency, hasten our transition toward clean energy sources like wind and solar, and steer more of the bill's investments toward the public benefit—not polluters.

"An unprecedented coalition of environmental, faith, community, labor, veterans, business, and other groups mounted one of the most vigorous grassroots campaigns in decades to move this crucial legislation through the House.  We will now redouble our efforts to move an even stronger bill through the Senate and on to the president's desk as soon as possible."

The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security Act has just passed a key procedural vote by the narrow margin of 217-205. The vote approves the rule for debating the proposed legislation, and Democratic leaders are optimistic that final passage could happen later today.

The bill proposes a cap-and-trade plan to create a market and put a price on carbon, aimed at reducing emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 (only 4% below 1990, the commonly used benchmark year for gauging emissions reductions), and 80% by 2050.

The bill has faced an unprecedented lobbying effort in opposition, and many environmental groups are against the bill as well, saying it doesn't go far enough. I would agree that it isn't enough, but am more worried of "the perfect becoming the enemy of the good." We must get started now, even if it means passage of a flawed bill with deep concessions to the vested interests of "business as usual". Failure to pass climate legislation at this juncture will have consequences that reach to the upcoming COP15 climate talks this December, and the international community's ability to reach a deal for a post-Kyoto climate treaty starting in 2012.

While we await final word on the bill's passage, I offer some further resources and links:

Daily Kos - ACES is Not a Victory for the Environmental Movement
Red, Green, and Blue - What the Big Green Guns are Saying
Climate Progress - 10 Reasons to Support Waxman-Markey Energy Bill
Climate Progress - ABC-WP Poll: Clear Majority of Americans Approve…

It seems that not a day goes by, for those reading about energy efficiency and renewable technology, without the announcement of a revolutionary high-tech approach to the challenge of reducing energy loads in towns and cities in an attempt to mitigate the related effects of global warming.  Many of these potential advancements will indeed someday prove viable and be implemented worldwide, but there are a number of near-term low-tech alternatives which can be adopted today, with nothing more than some political will and community education.  One such approach involves applying white paint or other related materials, upon dark roof surfaces on commercial, public, and residential buildings.

When this is done, more sunlight is reflected away from a structure, solar gain is dramatically reduced, and the amount of energy required for cooling is decreased, as less heat is transferred through the roof into the interior of the structure.  Considering the "heat island effect", the tendency for urban areas to retain much more heat than surrounding areas due to the presence of vast numbers of black roof surfaces and asphalt lots, coupled with a lack of heat-dispersing vegetation, these benefits become significant over time.  And as a whole, they contribute to the much needed reduction in CO2 emissions that climate leaders have been calling for.

Making this approach particularly noteworthy is the fact that it has been studied and promoted for over 30 years by a number of California energy science and policy luminaries, not the least of whom is Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.  Since the 1980s, scientists at Berkeley, CA-based Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) have been studying ways to enhance the energy efficiency of buildings and decrease the energy required to maintain them, with a particular focus on cooling, heating, lighting, and water use.  In regard to cool roofing, Surabi Menon and Hashem Akbari of LBNL, and California Energy Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld (formerly of LBNL), have studied the potential of a building surface's "emissivity", the amount of absorbed heat it is able to release, and how highly emissive materials can cause a significant decrease in the heat island effect when implemented on a large scale.  According to their estimates, adapting white roofs and paved surfaces in urban areas throughout the world, could reduce CO2 emissions by nearly 25 billion tons.  To put that in some perspective, that is the equivalent of removing over 300 million cars and trucks from the road for 20 years.  Considering the probability that over 75 % of the world's population will live in cities within about 30 years, it is essential that accessible solutions to the heat island effect like this one, be put into place without delay.

The non-profit Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) was founded in 1998, to establish and maintain industry standards for cool roof related products, including shingle, tile, metal sheeting, and paint.  CRRC also disseminates all relevant information to architects, contractors, government agencies, and others involved in roofing projects.  Since 2005 the State of California has required that cool roofs be included in all commercial building projects under Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and will soon require all residential, sloped or visible roofs be covered in "cool color" paints and other highly emissive materials.  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has even fostered cool roof development as part of his ambitious PlaNYC 2030.  In fact, there are a number of cool roof projects that may be launched throughout the city later this summer.

As LBNL scientists have noted numerous times, light colored structures have been constructed around the world for millenia, and there is no reason that the U.S. and other industrialized countries shouldn't adopt them as well.  Once one learns about the potential for white roofs to increase energy efficiency, reduce electrical loads, and cut greenhouse gases, one must agree with Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld when he states "The real question is not whether we should move toward cool roof technology: it's why we haven't done it sooner. " (Huffington Post, 05/29/2009)

Sources and Further Reading:

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., Cool Roofs Protect the Environment and Save Money, Huffington Post

California Energy Commission

California Energy Commission Consumer Energy Center

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations

New York City Department of Design and Construction Cool & Green Roofing Manual (pdf)

Cool Roof Rating Council

LBNL's Cool Colors Project

LBNL's Environmental Energy Technologies Division article on cool roofs