Climate Change: To geoengineer, or not to geoengineer

Speaking of geoengineering, there's actually a better way to solve the problem of climate change. From today's newspaper:

A new scientific study finds that the absolute worst of global warming can still be avoided if the entire world cuts emission of greenhouse gases the way President Barack Obama and Europe want.

The flip-the-switch answer to climate change

Some folks think we can solve our climate change/ global warming problems by relying on the miracle of engineering. In other words, don't worry about heading off the problem, let's just flip the right switch, and "fix" the climate. The technical term for this is geoengineering.

For those of us who love science fiction, though, this all sounds familiar. In numerous space operas, this is called terraforming (for the non-fan, see the movie Aliens). Thus, we would be terraforming terra (Earth) itself.

My gut tells me this is an awful idea, because of the law of unintended consequences, but some are giving it serious consideration. Take a look at Dot Earth's latest update on the American Meteorological Society's geoengineering project, and don't forget to click on the video.

Last year, Salon had a good article on this.

Congress gets serious about climate change, & we're left to ponder the future

Cue crowd noise. Cue the smell of the track. Cue sweat-dampened betting slips, clutched in our hands as we pray mightily that we might actually beat the fat cats and win for a change. Cue jockeys. Cue horses... The Climate Change Derby is off and running in Washington, DC!

The question, of course, is whether or not the legislative shenanigans that began in Congress this week will actually make any progress in limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Settle in. This is going to be a long race. Here are some first takes on what this all means.

Time reports on who did what to whom on Tuesday.

The House produced a long-awaited bill to regulate 85% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, anteing up for what promises to be long, high-stakes negotiations with the Senate and business groups alarmed at the $1 trillion price tag that some estimate such an effort could entail. The effects of the already intense lobbying were felt across the Capitol, where the Senate the same afternoon passed by an overwhelming margin an amendment resolving that any energy legislation should not increase electricity or gas prices. As it stands now, energy-price hikes are unavoidable under most of the climate-change plans swirling around Congress, including the draft introduced Tuesday by House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Representative Ed Markey, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

Time says the bill isn't expected to pass as it stands, but it might well give the Obama Administration cover for its more modest proposal.

Joe Romm gives the Waxman-Markey Bill a B+, which is high praise from the notoriously stern environmentalist.

Kevin Drum says he's a pessimist.

My reservations aside, this bill is the best thing we've seen on the energy front in a long, long time. I just wish it were even better, that's all. A guy can dream, can't he?

Read This: It's time to take to the streets to fight global warming

On Monday, writer and activist Bill McKibben, NASA scientist James Hansen and a host of other folks will resurrect some Civil Rights and Vietnam-era tactics to demand action on global warming. In what's being called the Capitol Climate Action, they plan to block access to the Capitol's own antiquated, carbon-belching, coal-fired plant.

The action's FAQ reports:

In general, our intent is to block off access to the Capitol Power Plant by surrounding the entrances, peacefully refuse to leave when asked, and safely disrupt its operations for the day. If by doing so we risk arrest, so be it. We will reflect the growing global movement that is not quietly asking for, but demanding, climate justice.

McKibben argues that it is more important than ever to take to the streets.

Barack Obama was a community organizer -- he understands that major change only comes when it's demanded, when there's some force noisy enough to drown out the eternal hum of business as usual, of vested interest, of inertia.

Hansen explains here.

Today's Must Reads: Coal trains are death trains & other climate change joys

One of the nation's leading climate scientists, James Hansen, is not a happy camper. Read why in this op-ed he just submitted to a British newspaper.

Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world’s oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretense that they are working on “clean coal” or that they will build power plants that are “capture ready” in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants. The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains

We all remember "clean coal," right?

The scientist who coordinated the UN's most recent report on climate change says the situation is far worse than they had thought. That last report failed to take a few, key factors into account, he says. Uh oh...

Today's Sobering Read: It's already too late on climate change

To anyone who has been paying attention to the science of climate change, today's news about a distressing report from climate researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France isn't, um, exactly NEW. As I've interviewed scientists for various pieces on climate change, they've been telling me this for quite some time.

The report's not-so-new news is that it's already too late to stop some of the nasty consequences of our ever warming climate. The problem, as one researcher says, is that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of a toxic waste.

"I think you have to think about this stuff as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we'll be," NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon told reporters in a conference call. "The more time that we take to make decisions about carbon dioxide, the more irreversible climate change we'll be locked into."

This is why the foot dragging of George Bush's administration hurt all of us in a deeply profound way as writer/activist Bill McKibben noted in his conversation with me. This is also why McKibben, scientist James Hansen and others are now arguing that CO2 emissions must be limited far more than anyone has suggested before.

Bill McKibben sings the Climate Change Blues

My interview with environmentalist Bill McKibben is up on the Progressive web site and also out in the magazine's dead tree edition. McKibben is a fascinating, driven and somewhat gloomy fellow. Talking to him was both exhilarating (as he looked forward to a post-fossil-fuel era) and downright terrifying as he talked about how far we have to go to get there. In honor of the soon-to-be inauguration of Barack Obama, here's one quote about our outgoing prez:

The Bush Administration was precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time

McKibben's climatological bottom line? The human race must change now, as in right this minute, or face a truly lousy future.

Obama: Speaking softly & carrying a big warning

As President-Elect Barack Obama is fond of saying over and over again, "there is only one president at a time." Yup, there sure is. But then again, Obama is making it clear that the one president warming up the office right now is definitely on his way out.

Obama's surprise appearance via video before the bi-partisan Governors Global Climate Summit today is just the latest example of this speak-softly-and-warn-big approach.

Coal industry lobbying budget climbs

The National Journal is reporting that The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity budget could be as high as $50 million this year. That's $5 million more than the budget ACCE Communications Vice President Joe Lucas reported to me in May.

The organization's executives are also on the scene in Denver to press the flesh and the minds of politicians and journalists.

The group also co-sponsored a party at a local club last night.

Coal industry crashes Democratic convention

[updated 8:47 pm CST]

Environmentalists report that the coal industry is throwing money and "the clean coal lie" at the 20,000 plus people gathered in Denver for the Democratic National Convention. The group I highlighted in my Salon.com report -- The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (or "Ace" as its leaders pronounce the name) -- also plans to head to the Republican convention next week.

The Hill reports:

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a group of mining companies and electric utilities, plans to spend $1.7 million on advertising and lobbying at the Democratic convention in Denver and the Republican one next week in St. Paul, Minn.

Michigan Messenger says "The Clean Coal Lie is Everywhere."

Solve Climate has a good overview of ACCE's activities and links to other stories.

When last I looked, ACCE had budgeted $45 million for just this year to convince voters and politicos that carbon dioxide can be scrubbed from coal. So far, the technology to do that doesn't exist, and even optimists say that kind of tech won't come online for at least a decade or two. Without that new, still non-existent tech, coal plants will remain one of the major engines warming the globe.

ACCE's plan is to make American taxpayers foot the bill for the R & D needed to transform coal into a clean fuel like wind or solar power.

[update]

Is the clean-coal push at the DNC falling flat? Also, environmentalists remind us that carbon dioxide isn't the only problem with the idea that coal can ever been clean.

Some Daily Kos bloggers track down the coal folk in Denver.

The Anti-Bush Isn't

By Diane Silver

In this most inhospitable year for Republicans, Sen. John McCain touts his record on global warming as proof he is the anti-Bush. Compared to President Bush, the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee looks... (read more at The Progressive)

Salon.com, clean coal, blogging & life

By Diane Silver

I have been a horrible, terrible, not-very-good blogger and have been neglecting this space. I do have some good excuses, though.

One is that I've been building a new area of expertise on climate change. My latest piece is on the multi-million-dollar effort to sell coal to America and can be found today on Salon.com at Celebrate clean coal, come on!

Among other projects is my new, personal web site, www.dianesilver.net.

I'm also hard at work learning more about the wonderful world of geology and paleoclimatology and getting ready to head to WisCon.

My latest Hope & Politics column will also be out soon in Camp KC and the Liberty Press.

Life is good!

Fact checking the Kansas House on climate change & coal

The Climate and Energy Project does a great job of fact-checking the House debate on the Holcomb coal plant bills. No surprise, but there are more than a few errors.

Denying coal plant won't hurt wind power

By Diane Silver

The claim that Kansas' denial of a huge, new coal plant near Holcomb will hurt the future of wind power took a hit this weekend.

The companies pushing for the coal plant say blocking coal would stop the construction of transmission lines for wind turbines.

Although not everyone at the 5th Kansas Electric Transmission Summit agreed, the Salina Journal reported that "many experts" said nothing is going to stop the surge to wind power.

The Salina Journal reports (emphasis added):

(T)he message from many of the experts was that wind development in the Midwest, especially Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, is growing explosively -- with or without new coal-fired power plants -- and the next order of business is to figure out how to ensure that the electric grid is fortified to serve needs for the foreseeable future.

More coverage is at the Lawrence Journal-World.

Meanwhile, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius joined with two Republican governors and one other Democratic governor in pledging to work on clean energy at the state level.

The head of NASA doesn't think we need to deal with the problem of climate change

By Nancy Jane Moore

In an interview on NPR's Morning Edition, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin grudgingly acknowledged that global warming exists and that scientific evidence has "pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade."

But then -- and I have taken the quote directly from NPR's online transcript because I'm still finding it hard to believe I heard him right -- he said:

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Now if we were talking about naturally occurring climate change, Griffin's point would be worth debating. If, for example, another ice age were imminent, due to the natural fluctuations of Earth's climate, should we try to prevent it, or should we figure out how to live with it? The argument that it's arrogant for us to change the natural climate to make it more comfortable for us is a rational one -- particularly if one assumes that we don't know everything we need to know about climate, which is probably true. I might not agree with it -- depending on the day I could take either side of such an argument -- but it's certainly worth talking about.

But we're not talking about natural shifts in the Earth's climate. We're talking about the dramatic and rapid changes brought on by human technological advances of the past 150 years. We're already changing the climate, just not on purpose. It is the height of arrogance to take the position that we don't have to consciously address how modern human life is affecting the planet.

Of course, I don't know what Griffin would say in response to the point that human-caused climate change is a different issue from naturally occurring change, because that idiot Steve Inskeep didn't bother to ask a follow up question challenging Griffin's "arrogance" comment. (Inskeep is a constant reminder of what a mistake NPR made in shoving Bob Edwards out to pasture. Edwards would have asked the right follow-up question. Inskeep never does.)

So I'm asking: Dr. Griffin, isn't it equally arrogant to ignore the effect of human beings on Earth's climate?

Of course, it's probably arrogant (or optimistic) of me to hope that Griffin will read our blog and answer in the comments section. But maybe some reporter will ask him the question the next time he's interviewed.

Climate Change: We all fiddle while the world burns

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the world Feb. 2 that evidence of global warming is "unequivocal." Their "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF) of their report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, pointed out not only that the change in global climate is due to human activity, but also that even if we make necessary changes now, the human race will still have to deal with the environmental repercussions for centuries to come.

According to The New York Times, the Bush administration said it "embraced" the findings and noted that it had "played a leading role" in climate research. However, The Times also noted that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman rejected the idea that the U.S. should adopt a national limit on carbon emissions. According to The Times, Bodman said, "We are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world, so it's really got to be a global solution."

In its next paragraph, The Times said:

The United States, with about 5 percent of the world’s population, contributes about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country.

The Times clearly thought this was the most important story on Feb. 2. The lead headline on The Times online all day Friday was:

Science Panel Says Global Warming Is 'Unequivocal'

But The Washington Post didn't give it the same play. Its lead story for most of Feb. 2 was the Iraq War. Late in the day, that was topped by "President Reaching Out To House Democrats." Global warming played second fiddle to those stories.

The Times made the right call, but The Post coverage shows just how big a problem there is in dealing with climate change. And once both had covered the IPCC report, climate change issues drew substantially less coverage. The Post did run a story on how the U.S., China, and India -- the world's heaviest polluter coupled with the two most populous nations -- declined to participate in a new environmental body suggested by France.

Global warming is the most important issue facing the world today, but even major newspapers rarely give it adequate attention. They are much more comfortable covering war and politics than in dealing with the crisis that is going to define the 21st Century.

To some extent, this is inevitable. Climate change is a long term problem, but war and politics always provide immediate crises -- breaking news. Both the news business and the human mind respond more quickly to trouble at hand than they do to trouble down the road.

And, in truth, the catastrophic results of the Bush administration's failed invasion of Iraq has created another long term crisis that will affect much of the world. But even chaos in the Middle East pales by comparison to the problems the human race will suffer from climate change, particularly if we don't get a handle on solutions soon.

Meanwhile, the world's two largest energy companies, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, earned record profits in 2006 -- $180 million/day, according to The Times.

The Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out back in January that Exxon is using Big Tobacco's tactics to undercut global warming research.

Incidentally, the UK publication, the Guardian, pointed out on Feb. 2 that the American Enterprise Institute has offered $10,000 to any scientists or economists who can undercut the IPCC report. The Guardian said:

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It seems that every report we see on climate change shows that the problem is even worse than we thought. But wealthy Big Oil -- with the usual short-sightedness of big business driven by short term profit -- keeps trying to muddy the waters. And the Bush administration -- which is virtually a subsidiary of Big Oil -- keeps making sure the U.S. does nothing to contribute to the solution.

Meanwhile the press -- and the rest of us -- are distracted by the Iraq War, by current politics, and by Bush's campaign to convince us that terrorism is the bigger crisis.

And so we continue doing nothing to address the most important issue facing the world today.