For more than half of a century, America’s regional power grids provided a platform for the nation’s economy to achieve vast productivity gains.  The advent of advanced electronics has galvanized a fundamental change in the way America uses power, which the nation’s grid has struggled –mostly unsuccessfully – to provide.   The cleavage between the quality of power needed to operate an advanced economy like the United States and the quality of power provided by our power grids is expanding too rapidly to reverse.  Unless we adjust the architecture of our energy economy, the same power grids that America’s economy the marvel of the world will cabin its future growth.  Energy consumption is the sine qua none of economic growth.  Rather than enhancing economic producticity as it has in the past, today’s centralized power systems may start to limit economic productivity.

DG presents a promising strategy for escaping this cataclysmic scenario.  Although DG is not a substitute for the central power grid, it is the most compelling mechanism available for adjusting business-as-usual, which has failed to reign in the relentless rise of power prices, improve quality of service or meet demand growth without the help of draconian policy interventions.  DG has the potential to plug critical holes in the system’s architecture, stabilize power prices, enhance national security and, most importantly, ensure that an antiquated power-delivery infrastructure does not blunt the productivity edge that made America the marvel of the world.

When the nation’s central power grids were built more than a century ago, “power reliability” was synonymous with  “availability of power.”   Electric power was electric power and consumers either had it or didn’t have it.  The concept of “power quality” was oxymoronic.  The proliferation of highly-sensitive electronic equipment throughout society is rapidly reframing this perception.

Before the introduction of electronic medical equipment, common electrical disturbances were  inconsequential to healthcare operations. Today, however, common electrical disturbances may cause high-tech medical equipment to malfunction . . . possibly resulting in extended patient discomfort, misdiagnoses, increased equipment downtime and service costs, and even life-threatening situations. Moreover, equipment damage and malfunctions can jeopardize patient safety and increase the cost of healthcare  . . .  Electrical disturbances can result in repeated diagnostic tests, wasted medical supplies, and expensive service and repair calls.1

Unlike many applications, electronic equipment is commonly designed for power supplies with specific voltage and current characteristics.  When voltage or current levels deviate from specified quality standards,  electronic equipment can be damaged or fail.  On the typical power delivery circuit, voltage and current variations occur fairly frequently.  As a result,  expectations about reliability for services providing power have expanded from simply “availability of service” to “availability and quality of service.”²

The nation’s regional power grids have struggled to satisfy the escalating demand for high quality power supply while at the same time addressing the needs of an aging and increasingly fragile T&D system.  The results have not been encouraging.   Power blackouts and the full spectrum of power quality problems have risen relentlessly for more than a decade.

Regulations have only begun to adapt to this fundamental shift in the nation’s energy economy.  In most jurisdictions, “service standards” for voltage levels, frequency controls, current charactersitics and so forth have not appreciably adapted to the evolving needs and expectations of power consumers, forcing consumers to implement increasingly elaborate and expensive power conditioning schemes to reduce their exposure to power-quality events.

Many of the power industries most pressing T&D problems are symptoms of this fundamental change.  Voltage sags and swells, frequency and harmonic stability, reactive power deficiencies and similar issues have direct consequences for the value received by end users.  Regulators need to recognize the consequences of low quality power, which are increasingly severe and costly, and the implications they have for the future of the nation’s power grid, namely that it would cost far more than anyone would be willing to spend to upgrade the power grid using conventional approaches T&D planning to provide end-users with a consistently high-quality supply of power.   In this context, DG  is likely to be viewed as a necessary part of any T&D planning strategy.

Critical Infrastructure Interlinkages

Over the second half of the 20th century, the advent of digital technologies and telecommunications dramatically increased interdependencies among U.S. critical infrastructures.  Disruptions in a single infrastructure can generate disturbances within other infrastructures and over long distances, and the pattern of interconnections can extend or amplify the effects of a disruption. The energy infrastructure provides essential fuel to all of the other critical infrastructures, and in turn depends on the Nation’s transportation, communications, finance, and government infrastructures. For example, coal shipments are highly dependent on rail. There are also interdependencies within the energy infrastructure itself, particularly the dependence of petroleum refineries and pipeline pumping stations on a reliable electricity supply and backup generators and utility maintenance vehicles to be supplied with diesel and gasoline fuel.

Map of Planned U.S. High Speed Interstate Rail Service

]]> http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/2010/02/america-gets-real-about-u-s-high-speed-intercity-rail-service/feed/ 0 http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/2010/02/u-s-climate-change-envoy-briefs-press/ http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/2010/02/u-s-climate-change-envoy-briefs-press/#comments Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:35:54 +0000 William Pentland http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/?p=5191 Briefing by Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern

February 16, 2010

With that impressive statistic in mind, I’ll hand the podium over to Todd Stern, who has about 20 minutes to answer your questions.

MR. STERN: Hello, everybody. Pleased to be here today. I’m just going to be very brief at the top and open it up for questions for you all.

Where we stand right now is – as you all know that Copenhagen meeting produced, in the end, a short document which is known as the Copenhagen Accord, we think a very important – short but important document that was produced very importantly through the intervention of leaders, a great number of leaders from countries there. It was, at the end of the day, not formally adopted as a decision of the – decision being a term of art – of the Conference of the Parties, but was supported by the overwhelming number of them.

The fact that it wasn’t formally adopted has led to a process since Copenhagen where countries essentially conveyed to the secretariat of the UN convention their interest in being part of it; the UN term is to associate itself with the accord. And in addition, the major countries, major economies have submitted their targets or actions that they plan to take to reduce emissions. So this is the developed countries and the major developing countries. That was supposed to happen by January 31^st and it did.

We now have slightly less than a hundred countries that have indicated they want to be part of the accord, and my guess is there will be still some additional ones who indicate that. The accord itself, I think, is an important document for a number of reasons. It includes – it quantifies the objective of this whole exercise of the Framework Convention. The objective, as stated in the convention, is to – essentially to avoid dangerous climate change and the Copenhagen Accord quantifies that by talking about limiting the increase in temperature to 2 degrees Centigrade. It includes a pledge by the major economies to submit their targets and actions. It includes important stuff on – important language on transparency, important provisions on financing, and on technology. So in – all in all, I think a very important step forward.

The – going forward this year, I think will be a combination of both of making elements of the accord operational as well as further discussions under the umbrella of the UN Framework Convention toward additional agreements in Mexico. So that’s kind of where things stand right now. I’m happy to take questions.

QUESTION: Sean Tannen with AFP. You alluded to this a little bit in your talk at the Center for American Progress –

MR. STERN: Yeah.

QUESTION: — the other week. The commitments by countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa aren’t necessarily unambiguous. How do you see that going forward, unless there’s a clear commitment by those emerging economies?

MR. STERN: Well, I think that that’s going to get clarified. I think that, first of all, they have all submitted their proposed actions and there’s nothing ambiguous about that. They have submitted the actions that they intend to take to reduce emissions. I think that’s a good thing. So far, I believe Brazil and South Africa have stated to the – have conveyed to the secretariat that they wish to be associated with the accord. And China and India have conveyed something which is not entirely clear. I think that’ll get clarified, though, is my guess over the course of the next few days.

There will be – the way this thing works is that the secretariat publishes a report on the COP, the Conference of the Parties. They do this every year when there’s a Conference of the Parties. After a couple of months, they publish a report, essentially, on the proceedings, what happened. And the report includes all of the decisions that were taken. One of those decisions was a decision to take note of this Copenhagen Accord. And so as part of that decision, the accord itself will be published. And on the front page of the accord, there will be a list of all the parties who have said we want to be part of this.

And so I think that that’s something that will presumably happen reasonably soon, and I would expect that all of the major countries will be part of it at that point.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly? But would there be a risk to the accord itself unless there is more clarity from these emerging economies?

MR. STERN: I think it’s important that the major countries be part of it, but I – again, I think that we have close to a hundred countries now. So I think that the accord is already kind of gathering steam.

Yes.

QUESTION: If India and China, turn out – don’t associate themselves with it, is there any possibility that the U.S. would pull out, essentially?

MR. STERN: No.

QUESTION: Not at all?

MR. STERN: No. I mean, I think that the U.S. is – we have put forward our own submission. It’s consistent with what President Obama announced back in November. So I don’t think it’s a question of the U.S. saying “Never mind.” I don’t think – that’s not the plan.

Yes.

QUESTION: Lalit Jha from Press Trust of India. Just a follow-up question. What you said is not clear about China’s and India’s proposals?

MR. STERN: The proposals are clear. This is a little bit confusing. I don’t want anybody to be confused. The proposals that they’ve all made with respect to “Here’s what we’re going to do,” perfectly clear. There is a second piece of this which is do you, quote “associate yourself with the accord,” and in effect, will you be one of those hundred-plus countries that are listed on the front page of the accord as having said “Yes, we want to be part of it.” That’s the piece that I’m talking about right now, and that’s – as I say, there’s just slightly less than a hundred countries that have said that. India and China have said something close to that, and I think the UN is just trying to make sure that they understand what the intention is.

QUESTION: Now my question about – India has distinctly announced that they will set up their own IPCC because they believe that the UN’s IPCC is not that realistic, that they are a bit confusing and it’s – they’re not reliable. What’s your opinion on that?

MR. STERN: Well, look. I think it’s a good thing for countries to have an active scientific effort. I don’t know what the details are. I don’t know what Minister Ramesh or others in India have in mind. But I think, obviously, the United States has all sorts of scientific work that we do through our various agencies of the U.S. Government. So I think that’s all a good thing.

I think the IPCC as an institution has made a very large contribution and I think it’s an important body that will continue and that is very representative of countries all over the world. So I don’t know what – I’m not familiar with the specifics of what India –

QUESTION: He was talking about – Minister Ramesh was talking about recent controversies about Himalayan glaciers.

MR. STERN: About what?

QUESTION: About Himalayan glaciers and the – some of the facts and figures in the IPCC report which has raised a lot of doubts.

MR. STERN: Right. Well, look, as I said, I think the IPCC is a very important body. I think it’s made a very important contribution. To the extent that there were any – that any errors appear in their lengthy report, I think that’s regrettable. But again, I’m not – I don’t have any – I’m not a scientist and I don’t have any considered view on the specifics. But I think the IPCC as an institution has been quite important and will continue to be important.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, actually? How much more difficult has your job been since the errors in the IPCC report came to light, both globally and –

MR. STERN: It was difficult already. (Laughter.) No, look, I think that the scientific underpinning for action on climate change, the fundamental science of climate change and the observed data, is quite overwhelming. I think that to the extent – and again, I make no comment one way or another about whether they’re mistakes – I just don’t know. But to the extent that there were any mistakes in the IPCC report, reports, assessments, or anywhere else, that’s regrettable. You don’t want there to be mistakes.

But what should not happen is that any individual mistakes, typos, whatever they might be, be taken to undermine the very fundamental record that exists from scientists all over the world and from observed data from all over the world that this is a quite serious and growing problem. So I think that that’s really the kind of underlying important point.

And nor should – and I think what you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find and say, look, there’s no climate change, it snowed last week in Washington, there’s no climate change. That kind of stuff is nonsense. And the exploiting of this or that mistake that might have occurred in some part of long reports that pull together a lot of scientific data, again, I think is – I think it needs to be seen for what it is, which is a deliberate attempt to undermine. The fundamentals haven’t changed.

QUESTION: Andy Quinn from Reuters. I was hoping you could talk a little bit after Copenhagen how you see the UN’s role in further negotiations about climate change and that of the Major Economies Forum. And do you have any word on when and where the next meeting of the MEF might be?

MR. STERN: Well, two things. I think the UN absolutely has an important role going forward. I think that there are obviously – anybody who was at or closely following Copenhagen can see that there are challenges with respect to managing a big process like that, particularly one with – where a small group of countries can block actions. That is certainly difficult, but it is – the UN has a special level of credibility and history in this and we support the UN process.

The Major Economies Forum, I think, was a very useful exercise last year, a useful forum, a useful body that we really picked up from the previous administration and then kind of remodeled. So we have every intention of continuing that this year. I am quite sure that we will have a meeting this spring. We haven’t set the exact date or the place yet, but I would anticipate that we will be working with our Major Economies Forum partners to set up a meeting in the relatively near term.

And I might say that in the fall we began a practice of inviting a few additional countries to participate who were important countries but not necessarily majors in terms of their economies. And I think that that was a useful process that we began in – I can’t remember if it was September or October, but we started it in the fall. And I would guess we’ll probably continue something like that as well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) broaden the guest list even further?

MR. STERN: A little bit. A little bit, but not to a large extent.

Yes.

QUESTION: Sort of related to his question, is there any coordination between your office and the Trade Representative’s office, folks at Commerce, folks at Treasury, in trying to deal with some of the economic concerns that some countries might have about trying to limit their economic output that might have an impact on the rise in temperatures globally?

MR. STERN: Well, two things. We coordinate with everybody. I mean, this is not just a State Department exercise. It’s a government exercise. We – for starters, we coordinate very closely with the White House, obviously with the President but also with people in the NSC and the climate and energy office over there. And we coordinate a lot with Treasury and EPA and Energy and Commerce and other places. So this is a broad government effort where, of course, on the diplomatic side, State’s in the lead, but there’s a lot of coordination just in general.

With respect to the question of countries who need to play a role and who have concerns about that, we interact, we discuss those issues with the countries – with countries in that kind of a position a lot. I think that USTR is also an agency that we certainly do work with. Look, there’s kind of a basic underlying reality here, which is that countries in the sort of emerging market category of countries, which is really what you’re talking about, they have to be part of the solution in dealing with this problem.

If you only look at developed countries, you’re at about 40, maybe – somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of total emissions and shrinking. And if you’re trying to deal with the 80 or 85 percent of emissions and growing, you’ve got to bring in China and India and Brazil, other countries like that. You have to do it in a way that is mindful of their own needs for development, but those things can be reconciled and they have to be reconciled or else there’s no way to deal with the problem.

MR. TONER: Okay, just a couple more questions.

QUESTION: On the difference between associating with the accord and commitments for the accord –

MR. STERN: Yeah.

QUESTION: — Yvo de Boer earlier, a few weeks ago, said that there – that the January 31 was a soft deadline. Are – do you know what the number of countries is that have made commitments for the accord?

MR. STERN: Yeah. Well, I mean, I know that Yvo said that, but the reality is that the countries who were expected to make those commitments did so by January 31^st. I think somebody might have been February 1^st, but basically it was done by January 31^st. And those countries are the developed – all developed countries, so U.S., Europe, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, et cetera; and the major developing countries, so that’s China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia. Korea and Mexico are kind of in a halfway house, but they’re still traditionally considered developing. And there are some additional countries. I don’t have them at the – at my fingertips. There’re some additional countries that would not necessarily be considered majors but who nonetheless did step forward and make their own commitments with respect to actions.

So that piece of it is basically, in terms of meeting the deadline, that got done. That’s done.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. STERN: So now we’re just in the world of what countries are going to be reflected as part of the Copenhagen Accord.

QUESTION: Okay. And in relation to that, what are the next steps in the accord process?

MR. STERN: Well, there’s –

QUESTION: — leading on to COP (inaudible)?

MR. STERN: Yes. So there were these two steps we’ve already just talked about, the making your commitments and the associating, which is – that part – not quite over yet. Beyond that, there are a number of elements in the accord that, by their terms, need further elaboration. So it calls for a global fund. All right, well, then you need to set up – set the fund up. You need to – there’s a structure, there’s mechanics, how the fund will work. It calls for technology mechanism. All right, what does it look like? Does it look this way or this way or how – what is it – what are the elements of the mechanism?

A very important provision about transparency, including with respect to developing countries, including with respect to actions they take on their own as opposed to just actions they take when they’re funded. Very important stuff there. And in paragraph five of the accord, it talks about further guidelines to spell out those transparency provisions. Okay, that needs to get done. So there are probably four or five elements of the accord that need further work, and I think that that – that those things need to be carried forward. The first piece of that that got announced was a high-level panel or group, advisory group, I think it’s called, on financing that Ban Ki-moon announced just Friday.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. STERN: That’s under – I think it’s paragraph nine of the accord that talks about setting up a high-level panel to do a study on potential sources of income toward realizing that goal of $100 billion by 2020. All right. So they’ve now announced that panel. I think there’s a couple of members from different countries, including ours, that haven’t been announced yet. But that’s underway and there’ll be other elements of that that I think as time goes on will get – will be – will get underway as well.

MR. TONER: Any more questions? Go ahead.

QUESTION: We’ve heard that several companies – BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar – dropped out of the Climate Action Partnership. I’m wondering if you can talk specifically about that, if you know about it. Is it a blow to that side of the equation? And more specifically, how do you feel that business is – I mean, do you think that there is some concern that business interest in this whole process is waning?

MR. STERN: I don’t know anything about that – about the specifics, so I’m not going to comment on that. I think – it’s interesting. I think that overall business interest and focus on this issue is growing gradually and that that will continue, because whatever the ups and downs of this process at any particular moment, there is only one direction that this process can go, which is in the direction of action to reduce emissions. I hope we get there – I very much hope we get there sooner rather than later and we will be doing everything we possibly can to advance that goal. But whether it’s sooner or later, it’s coming. Businesses get that. Businesses need to plan for not just – businesses don’t drive by looking right over the head of the car, they look down the road, and this is coming. So I think that that will grow.

Thank you.

With the recent administration change and economic downturn, the US priorities in energy, environment, science, and the economy have been altered or strengthened. The current baseline goal is to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Within ten years, the US plans to increase its energy security by cutting oil consumption to reduce dramatically oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela. In this process, the new administration expects to strengthen America’s role as the world leader in science and technology innovation.

In the very near term, implementation of the economic recovery package aims to create new “green jobs” and jump start the processes needed to meet the stated goals. As stated by the new Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, there are multiple over-arching elements to the strategy the US will implement to reach energy efficiency and security goals. These elements include developing science and engineering talent through increased efforts to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers; focusing on transformational research; building research networks integrating national laboratories, universities and industries, both domestic and international; and hastening demonstration and deployment through loan guarantees, block grants, and other funding for demonstrating next-generation technologies.

Noting that a mixed technology portfolio will lower the long-term costs of addressing climate change, the areas of research in the US are quite broad, and the technology strategy includes a number of different elements.

The key technology elements focus on reducing emissions from power generation, reducing emissions from transportation through new fuels and more efficient vehicles, and increasing energy efficiency in all sectors. Several policy measures and increased funding are utilized to drive RD&D activities in these areas.

• The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the DOE received $18.7 billion to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy through increased support of the development and deployment of clean energy technologies such as solar, biomass, geothermal, wind, and low-carbon emission coal power.
• The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability received $4.6 billion for investment in a nationwide plan to modernize the electric grid, enhance security of U.S. energy infrastructure and ensure reliable electricity delivery to meet growing demand.

Climate Change Technology Innovation

• The Office of Fossil Energy received $4.3 billion for initiatives that will focus on RD&D 4 of technologies to use coal more cleanly and efficiently.
• The Office of Nuclear Energy received $1.4 billion for nuclear R&D that will help encourage the emergence and adoption of new and improved designs and help address barriers believed to be impeding its broader application domestically and worldwide.
• The Office of Science received $6.4 billion for basic research and world-leading scientific user facilities to support transformational discoveries and accelerate solutions to the most pressing problems, including the development of clean energy.

In sum, the US has energetic new leadership on the energy and environmental front. This leadership has shown significant commitment to action and appears willing to utilize every tool at their disposal, including new legislation, regulation, and financial incentives.

The energy revolution needed to shift the world’s energy economy from fossil fuels to clean energy and reverse the road to run called climate change is not proceeding as planned.  Too little is happening and it is happening too slowly. One reason: lack of access to finance.

A determined stand on helping more developing and transition economies obtain easier access to cleaner technology solutions was an encouraging outcome from last December’s UNFCCC Copenhagen Climate Conference, where steps were announced to facilitate technology development and transfer. Since 1995, the Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) has been working to facilitate wider dissemination of sustainable energy technology. The CTI’s Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN) is playing a steadily growing role in connecting sustainable energy projects with the necessary finance to get them up and running. Thanks to the PFAN, work is now under way on the largest biomass plant in the Philippines. Elmer Holt, Chair of the CTI’s Executive Committee provides details about this success story and about the work of the CTI and its PFAN’s activities. Access Elmer Holt’s article here. The CTI is one of 42 IEA international energy technology collaborations.

If Congress passes climate and energy legislation that strengthens energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, Americans may see electric and natural gas costs fall by $113 billion by 2030.  In addition, emitters would pay 4 percent less in compliance costs to meet potential requirements under a cap-and-trade scheme, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The new analysis follows a study by U.S. Energy Information Administration in August 2009 related to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a comprehensive climate and energy bill passed in June 2009 by the U.S. House of Representatives.  In addition to a national cap on carbon emissions, ACES includes a combined energy efficiency and renewable electricity standard (RES) requiring large electric utilities to increase their use of efficiency and renewable energy to a nominal target of 20 percent by 2025. While the EIA study showed that ACES is both achievable and affordable, it also found that the RES embedded in the bill does not contribute to any substantial growth of renewable energy because of loopholes that erode the required electricity generation to levels below the EIA’s “Business as Usual” projections.  The analysis also found that stronger renewable energy and efficiency policies would avoid the need for nearly 50 new nuclear reactors and diversify the nation’s energy mix more quickly than the current bill would.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy announced the launch of the State Energy Efficiency Action Network last week, which aims to accelerate deployment of energy efficiency policies and programs at the state level.

The goal of SEE Action is to assist energy policymakers, utility regulators, energy efficiency program administrators, and other market participants in achieving all cost-effective energy efficiency by 2020 – five years earlier than originally envisioned by the Action Plan. SEE Action will consider more than just ratepayer funded energy efficiency programs and will examine the full array of opportunities to achieve greater energy efficiency.

New SEE Action working groups will be created to address obstacles common to multiple states and advance consistent approaches and best practices. Working groups are expected in the areas of residential efficiency programs, financing solutions, evaluation of program savings, and improving availability of energy usage information.

Wind power is now competing closely with natural gas as the leading source of new electricity generation for the country. Collectively, wind and natural gas accounted for a whopping 80 percent of new capacity in the U.S. in 2009.

“U.S. wind turbine manufacturing — the canary in the mine — is down compared to last year’s levels, and needs long-term policy certainty and market pull in order to grow,” said AWEA CEO Denise Bode.  “We need to set hard targets, in the form of a national Renewable Electricity Standard, in order to provide the necessary stability for manufacturers to expand their U.S. operations and to seize the historic opportunity we have today to build up a thriving renewable energy industry.”

Before the Recovery Act (ARRA), the industry anticipated that in 2009 wind power development might drop by as much as 50% from 2008 levels, with equivalent job losses. The clear commitment by the President to create clean energy jobs and the swift implementation of ARRA incentives by the Administration in mid-summer reversed the situation. Recovery Act incentives spurred the growth of construction, operations and maintenance, and management jobs, helping the industry to save and create jobs in those sectors and shine as a bright spot in the economy.

At the same time, the continuing lack of a long-term policy and market signal allowed investment in the manufacturing sector to drop compared to 2008, with one-third fewer wind power manufacturing facilities online, announced and expanded in 2009. The result was net job losses in the manufacturing sector, which were compounded by low orders and high inventory. Looking forward, the critical Recovery Act manufacturing incentives that were announced only at the start of this year will also need to be supplemented with the hard targets of a national Renewable Electricity Standard.

With 4,041 MW completed, this fourth quarter was the strongest in the year but still lower than the fourth quarter of 2008.  The 9,922 MW installed last year expand the nation’s wind plant fleet by 39% and bring total wind power generating capacity in the U.S to over 35,000 MW. The five-year average annual growth rate for the industry is now 39%, up from 32% between 2003 and 2008. U.S. wind projects today generate enough to power the equivalent of 9.7 million homes, protecting consumers from fuel price volatility and strengthening our energy security.

America’s wind power fleet will avoid an estimated 62 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, equivalent to taking 10.5 million cars off the road, and will conserve approximately 20 billion gallons of water annually, which would otherwise be withdrawn for steam or cooling in conventional power plants.

Maputo, Mozambique
Population: 1.1 million
Land: Coastal lowlands bordering the Indian Ocean
Climate: Tropical humid with an annual rainfall of 900 millimetres (mm)
Major concerns: Cyclones which cause flooding, a rise in sea level and coastal erosion

WorldWatch Institute

Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
Population: 2.1 million
Land: Contains the watersheds of four major rivers; some woodland, coastal swamps, coastal shrubs and mangrove trees
Climate: Hot and humid with two rainy seasons and an average annual rainfall of 1,000mm
Major concerns: Flooding, a rise in sea level and coastal erosion

Khulna, Bangladesh
Population: 1.3 million
Land: Part of the world’s largest delta
Climate: Hot, wet and humid with a high annual average rainfall of 1,900mm
Major concerns: Increased frequency and level of flooding, increased frequency and extent of storm surges and increased frequency and intensity of cyclones, water-logging, saltwater intrusion, sedimentation and riverbank erosion

Cotonou, Benin
Population: 665,000
Land: Located on the barrier beach between the Atlantic Ocean and a lake; land is made up of alluvial sands and lagoons
Climate: Sub-equatorial with temperatures between 27 and 31oC and average annual rainfall of 1,000 mm
Major concerns: Flooding and violent winds

Nouakchott, Mauritania
Population: 550,000
Land: Low-lying on the Atlantic Ocean, predominantly on l’Aftout es Saheli, a long, narrow coastal lagoon
Climate: Arid with temperature varying between 14 and 37 Celcius, average annual rainfall of 600 mm
Major concerns: Coastal flooding and sand damage

Bamako, Mali
Population: 1.1 million
Land: Savannah, built on either side of the Niger River
Climate: Average annual temperature of 28oC and average annual rainfall of 1,100mm
Major concerns: Deforestation due to fires, grazing and drought has led to erosion of the hillsides; flooding due to short intense rains; and water scarcity

Diourbel, Senegal
Population: 100,000
Land: Located in a valley with no bodies of water and weak soil
Climate: Sahelian climate with 400-500mm of rainfall per year
Major concerns: Lack of water and problems with drainage and agriculture

Mombasa, Kenya
Population: 870,000 Land: Low-lying coastal plain
Climate: Warm and tropical with average temperatures of 26oC and high humidity
Major concerns: Rise in sea level, high temperatures and storms

Khartoum, Sudan
Population: 3.9 million Land: Located on the confluence of the White and Blue Niles
Climate: Hot arid climate with an average annual rainfall of 155mm and a very high average temperature of 38oC
Major concerns: Drought and extreme flooding

Thimphu, Bhutan
Population: 100,000
Land: The city lies in a gentle valley along a river at an altitude of 2,300m, with a mixture of forest areas, terraces and marshlands
Climate: Cool and temperate with temperatures ranging from 0 to 25oC and average annual rainfall of 675mm
Major concerns: Flooding, landslides and fires

Kathmandu, Nepal
Population: 1 million
Land: The city is situated in a valley 1,300m above sea level
Climate: Cool and temperate with an average annual rainfall of 1,300mm and temperatures ranging from 10 to 24oC
Major concerns: Flooding

Harare, Zimbabwe
Population: 2 million
Land: Watershed plateau between two major rivers at an altitude of 1,550m; hilly in rocky areas and flatter in the south
Climate: Humid subtropical climate with average temperature of 18oC and an average annual rainfall of 850mm
Major concerns: Flooding and pollution

Kampala, Uganda
Population: 1.1 million
Land: Built on seven hills 1,200m above sea level
Climate: Equatorial climate with cool breezes from Lake Victoria and the mountains; average annual rainfall of 1,200mm, with temperatures ranging between 17 and 22oC
Major concerns: Flooding and droughts

Lusaka, Zambia
Population: 1.1 million
Land: The city is situated at an altitude of 1,300m \
Climate: Sub-equatorial but moderated by the city’s altitude
Major concerns: Flooding and droughts

Blantyre, Malawi
Population: 700,000
Land: Located in the Shire Highlands with varied topography ranging from an elevation of about 780 to 1,600m above sea level
Climate: Tropical continental climate with a rainy and a dry season
Major concerns: Flooding

Related articles by Zemanta

• Warming Ocean Melts Greenland Glaciers (abcnews.go.com)

Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are asteroids and comets that orbit the sun and approach or cross Earth’s orbit. An asteroid or comet about 10 kilometers in diameter struck the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago and caused global devastation, probably wiping out large numbers of plant and animal species including the dinosaurs. Objects as large as this one strike Earth only about once every 100 million years on average, according to a new report from the National Research Council lays out options NASA could follow to detect more NEOs.

While impacts by large NEOs are rare, a single impact could inflict extreme damage, raising the classic problem of how to confront a possibility that is both very rare and very important. Far more likely are those impacts that cause only moderate damage and few fatalities. Conducting surveys for NEOs and detailed studies of ways to mitigate collisions is best viewed as a form of insurance, the report says. How much to spend on these insurance premiums is a decision that must be made by the nation’s policymakers.
The report says the $4 million the U.S. spends annually to search for NEOs is insufficient to meet a congressionally mandated requirement to detect NEOs that could threaten Earth.

Congress mandated in 2005 that NASA discover 90 percent of NEOs whose diameter is 140 meters or greater by 2020, and asked the National Research Council in 2008 to form a committee to determine the optimum approach to doing so.  In an interim report released last year, the committee concluded that it was impossible for NASA to meet that goal, since Congress has not appropriated new funds for the survey nor has the administration asked for them.

NASA has been highly successful at detecting and tracking objects 1 kilometer in diameter or larger, and continues to search for these large objects. Objects down to sizes of about 140 meters in diameter — which NASA has been mandated to survey for — would cause regional damage; such impacts happen on average every 30,000 years, the report says.

In its final report, the committee lays out two approaches that would allow NASA to complete its goal soon after the 2020 deadline; the approach chosen would depend on the priority policymakers attach to spotting NEOs.  If finishing NASA’s survey as close as possible to the original 2020 deadline is considered most important, a mission using a space-based telescope conducted in concert with observations from a suitable ground-based telescope is the best approach, the report says.  If conserving costs is deemed most important, the use of a ground-based telescope only is preferable.

The report also recommends that NASA monitor for smaller objects – those down to 30 to 50 meters in diameter — which recent research suggests can be highly destructive.  However, the report stresses that searching for smaller objects should not interfere with first fulfilling the mandate from Congress.  Beyond completion of that mandate, the report notes the need for constant vigilance in monitoring the skies, so as to detect all dangerous NEOs.  In addition, the nation should undertake a peer-reviewed research program to better investigate the many unknown aspects connected with detecting NEOs and countering those that could be a threat.  The U.S. should also take the lead in organizing an international entity to develop a detailed plan for dealing with hazards from these objects.

In addition, the report recommends that immediate action be taken to ensure the continued operation of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico.  NASA and NSF should support a vigorous program of NEO observations at Arecibo, and NASA should also support such a program at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex.  Although these facilities cannot discover NEOs, they play an important role in accurately determining the orbits and characterizing the properties of NEOs within radar range.

Mitigating Damage

The report also examines what is known about methods to defend against NEOs.  These methods are new and still immature.  No single approach is effective for the full range of near-Earth objects, the committee concluded.  But with sufficient warning, a suite of four types of mitigation is adequate to meet the threat from all NEOs, except the most energetic ones.

• Civil defense (evacuation, sheltering in place, providing emergency infrastructure) is a cost-effective mitigation measure for saving lives from the smallest NEO impact events and is a necessary part of mitigation for larger events.
• “Slow push” or “slow pull” methods use a spacecraft to exert force on the target object to gradually change its orbit to avoid collision with the Earth.  This technique is practical only for small NEOs (tens of meters to roughly 100 meters in diameter) or possibly for medium-sized objects (hundreds of meters), but would likely require decades of warning.  Of the slow push/pull techniques, the gravity tractor appears to be by far the closest to technological readiness.
• Kinetic methods, which fly a spacecraft into the NEO to change its orbit, could defend against moderately sized objects (many hundreds of meters to 1 kilometer in diameter), but also may require decades of warning time.
• Nuclear explosions are the only current, practical means for dealing with large NEOs (diameters greater than 1 kilometer) or as a backup for smaller ones if other methods were to fail.

Although all of these methods are conceptually valid, none is now ready to implement on short notice, the report says.  Civil defense and kinetic impactors are probably the closest to readiness, but even these require additional study prior to reliance on them.

Given the significant unknowns about many aspects of the threat and its mitigation, the report recommends that the U.S. start a peer-reviewed, targeted research program on the hazards posed by NEOs, and how to deal with them.  Because this is a policy-driven, applied research program, it should not be in competition with basic scientific research programs or be funded from them, the report adds.

Measuring the greenhouse gas emissions from a city, state, or country requires comprehensive tabulations of energy use, land-use changes, industrial emissions and many other factors.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has recently explored new methods for managing carbon emissions inventories.  Using NASA’s Terra satellite, the agency surveyed the “greenness” of California’s vegetation and then plugged the results into an ecosystem simulation model to estimate monthly variations in the accumulated biomass of wood and other plant materials.  One key limitation for the method: it relied on inventory data from the California Energy Commission to model the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and from agricultural lands throughout the state.

The study found that in 2004, the state’s natural ecosystems absorbed as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as was emitted by burning fossil fuels, with significant amounts of carbon dioxide being trapped in forests and soils during periods of above-normal rainfall. The bad news for California is that such periods of above-normal rainfall have become rare, as the state has been suffering under drought conditions since the fall of 2006.

Ford is also investing heavily in electrified vehicles. The company announced on January 11 that it will invest an additional $450 million in Michigan as part of its aggressive electric vehicle plan. Ford intends to build a next-generation hybrid and plug-in hybrid in Michigan beginning in 2012. The new investment is in addition to a previously announced $550 million investment in the Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, Michigan, in part for the production of an all-electric Ford Focus, starting next year. But first, Ford is collaborating with Azure Dynamics Corporation to produce an all-electric Ford Transit Connect van, which will be sold in the United States and Canada this year. Azure will integrate its battery electric drive train in the Transit Connect van for commercial fleet and retail use. The collaboration with Azure Dynamics for the Transit Connect BEV will build on the existing business relationship between Ford and Azure as well as their shared experience with Johnson Controls-Saft, their battery supplier. Looking towards the future, Ford is even working with the University of Detroit Mercy to retrain automotive engineers to develop electric vehicles instead.

GM and Ford can expect plenty of competition in the electric vehicle arena. In addition to Toyota’s plans to offer an electric vehicle for model year 2012, the Norwegian company Think (once part of Ford) is investing $43.5 million in a factory in Indiana that will produce the all-electric Think City, a highway-capable urban vehicle. Think says the plant could begin assembling vehicles early next year. In the truck market, Balqon Corporation introduced a heavy-duty electric truck for short haul applications, the Mule M-150, in late September, while Smith Electric Vehicles US Corp started assembling electric trucks in Kansas City, Missouri, in October. See the Think press release, the Balqon press release and Mule M-150 Web page; and the press release from Smith Electric Vehicles US Corp.

The findings of a two-and-a-half year technical study of future high-penetration wind scenarios were released today by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) .  The study assessed the economic, operational, and technical implications of shifting 20 percent or more of the Eastern Interconnection’s electrical load to wind energy by the year 2024.

“To put the scale of this study in perspective, consider that just over 70 percent of the U.S. population gets its power from the Eastern Interconnect. Incorporating high amounts of wind power in the Eastern grid goes a long way towards clean power for the whole country,” aid David Corbus, NREL project manager for the study. “We can bring more wind power online, but if we don’t have the proper infrastructure to move that power around, it’s like buying a hybrid car and leaving it in the garage.”

The study’s key findings included the following:

• Integration of 20 percent wind energy is technically feasible, but will require significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure and system operational changes in order for it to be realized;
• Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment of wind generation would be required for all 20 percent wind scenarios studied;
• Producing wind energy from a larger geographic area makes it both less expensive and a more reliable energy source – increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool makes the aggregated wind power output more predictable and less variable;
• Wind energy development is a highly cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions – as more wind energy comes online, less energy from fossil-fuel burning plants is required, reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• The relative cost of aggressively expanding the existing transmission grid represents only a small portion of the total annualized costs in any of the scenarios studied;
• Carbon emissions are reduced by similar amounts in all scenarios;
• Reduced fossil fuel expenditures more than pay for the increased costs of additional transmission in all high wind scenarios.

The United States Senate is planning to consider legislation raising the United States debt limit tomorrow.  As part of the agreement to bring this issue to a vote, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has promised to propose an amendment that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its authority to regulate the emissions of power plants and utilities.  SEEC Co-chairs Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) released the following statement on the proposed amendment:

“This misguided amendment would stall economic growth and ensure our energy sector never fully modernizes. If we don’t make progress on clean energy now, the United States will be trying to compete in the 21^st century with a 20^th century economy.  At best, this proposal is based on incorrect assumptions. At worst, it protects narrow self interests at the expense of public health.

This is not the time to be timid, but bold.  China is investing $12.6 million per hour in clean energy technology to create new jobs and thriving industries.  Our energy policy and commitment to public health must match the ingenuity and resolve of the American people.  That is why the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition worked with our colleagues in the House to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.  This legislation holds the key to unleashing vast sums of new investment that will create millions of new jobs.  A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) and Yale University concluded that the legislation could create 1.9 million new jobs  and add $111 billion to our GDP by 2020.

Senator Murkowski’s proposal would hamstring the ability of EPA and Congress to regulate carbon emissions and other threats to public health and our country.  By doing so, it would undermine our growing clean energy economy. The Senate should reject this amendment and move forward quickly on energy legislation to move our economy forward and put millions back to work in good, paying jobs.”

In “Certification Strategies, Industrial Development and the Making of a Global Market for Biofuels,” a discussion paper released by Harvard University’s Sustainability Science Program and the Belfer Center’s Environment and Natural Resources Program at the Harvard Kennedy School, Ricardo Hausmann and Rodrigo Wagner lay out five organizing principles for maximizing the development impact of a global biofuel market.

• Provide certainty for production in places that do not have it, but do so in a way that promotes competitiveness.
• Directly focus certification processes on impacts that can be observed by a third party as opposed to indirect impacts that cannot be clearly attached to biofuels production.
• Understand that societies have multiple goals: energy efficiency, reducing carbon emissions, rural development, food security and biodiversity. Policies to meet those goals should be targeted and specific. Do not try to protect the world’s forests though bioenergy regulation, rather protect them through polices aimed to reduce deforestation.
• Minimize transaction costs and avoid adding administrative burdens.

Create “scaffolding regulations,” which are a flexible set of norms that can accommodate future changes in the policy and regulatory environment.

The paper calculates the potential of a global bioenergy market in poor tropical countries and lays out the challenges that would have to be met if the potential is to be realized. Both the United States and European Union are in the process of designing policies governing the sale of biofuels to meet recently enacted standards. This paper provides a framework to guide policymakers as they attempt to balance environmental protection and economic growth in the world’s poorest countries.

This article argues that indulging this rhetoric will lead to unrealistic expectations about the ability of climate-change science to guide policy at the granular level.  The paper’s first section surveys the research supporting the prevailing rhetoric used to frame climate-change science by environmentalists  and climate-policy advocates.  After briefly outlining the structural sources of uncertainty in climate-change science in the second section, the paper then explains why the prevailing climate-change rhetoric is likely to provoke a political backlash.  Finally, the paper suggests an alternative approach for framing climate-change science that draws on the precepts of the common law of evidence in the United States.

Rhetorical Framing of Climate-Change Science

There is a tendency among advocates of pro-active climate-change policies to presume that people lacking the technical proficiency to interpret the uncertainties ubiquitous in climate science will overestimate the significance of those uncertainties, which is likely to distort the policy response to climate change.  The worry is that, absent the ability to assess probabilities, uncertainty may result in burning the barn to roast the proverbial pig.  In other words, non-technical people may construe uncertainty as grounds for dismissing the science behind climate change altogether.  This has gradually resulted in the emergence of a “sanitized” version of climate-change, which focuses almost exclusively on the “certainties” in climate-change science.

Studies have shown that “in response to a fixed probability scale, people will have a tendency to over-estimate the likelihood of low-magnitude events, and under-estimate the likelihood of high-magnitude events.”^[3] People generally believe that probability estimates reflect the magnitude of risks associated with specific outcomes, which is seldom actually true.  Unless analysts explain that their probability estimates have not been adjusted up or down according to the severity of the event described, policy makers’ response to assessments are “ … likely to be biased downward, leading to insufficient efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”^[4]

A similar logic suggests that efforts to advise decision makers should also steer clear of uncertainty.  Decision makers, conventional wisdom has it, are unlikely to heed advice received from anything other than “one armed scientists.”^[5] The evidence supporting this view abounds and is hardly limited to the technical literature.^[6]

That the public has trouble interpreting projections used to estimate the potential impact of climate change and that the debate over these potential consequences is well documented.^[7] Moser and Dilling prescribe what has become a commonly used approach to discuss climate change issues, which advises communicators  to “lead with the strongest argument—that is, with the greatest scientific certainty and confidence.” ^[8] In other words, the conventional wisdom is that “communications should emphasize what we know, rather than what we don’t know.”^[9]

A more nuanced strategy focuses on “predisposing” people to believe in climate change.  People with a specific set of cognitions are more likely to consider climate change a sufficiently serious threat to the nation’s future welfare to warrant a federal policy response.^[10] In particular, Krosnick and colleagues have identified five beliefs that predispose a person to support an aggressive policy response to climate change:

• Climate change is real.
• It is a certainty.
• It is caused by humans.
• It is harmful to people.
• It can be solved.

As a result, advocates for more stringent climate-change policies have often considered the cultivation of these beliefs to be central objectives of communication campaigns.^[11]

A third influential strain of research about public support or opposition to federal climate policy has focused on the importance of actual knowledge of global warming.   Bord and colleagues^[12] discovered that the depth of a person’s understanding of what causes climate change was an especially powerful predictor of a person’s willingness to take voluntary.^[13]

These collective insights have led communicators to prefer a particular brand of climate-change pedagogy that concentrates advocacy efforts on the most compelling case available for the “certainty” of climate change and its impacts.  Ironically, anti-climate policy strategists have reinforced this approach by focusing rhetorical opposition on the opposite side of the same issues.  A particularly well known example of this approach appeared in the so-called “Luntz Memo,” a 16-page section of a briefing book for lobbyists and Republican politicians prepared by a Republican pollster and policy strategist named Frank Luntz.[14]

The Luntz Memo advises Republicans on how to spin a variety of topics to roll back environmental and public health protections while avoiding a public backlash.  More specifically, the Memo prescribed the following wisdom for spinning political opposition to policies designed to combat global warming:

The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community.  Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.  Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.^[15]

Luntz appears to have anticipated the findings of previously mentioned research that shows that a person’s support for climate policy depends largely on his or her belief about the integrity of climate-change science.  Intuitively, this makes sense.  If a rational person believes climate change is a certainty, he or she will also believe that climate policy is a rational response to manage that change.  As a result, the integrity or lack of integrity of climate-change science has taken center stage in the popular debate over climate policy.  This focus initially favored opponents of climate policy, but has tipped overwhelmingly in favor pro-climate policy groups over the past decade.  In fact, many have construed the emerging sea-change in federal support for climate-change policy as the de facto end to the popular debate over climate-change science.

The recent success of climate policy has encouraged advocates of climate-change policy to amplify this rhetoric to solidify support among the mainstream public and convince those who remain skeptical.  While this may yield short-term gains, it is also amplifying unappreciated liabilities that jeopardize the public’s future support for climate policy. The principal problem is that science rhetoric has conflated two very different evidentiary standards in the public psyche.  Ironically, the Luntz Memo offers a compelling example of the semantic slippage that leads to this problem.

The passage from the Luntz Memo included above treats “scientific consensus” and “scientific certainty” as semantically identical despite the vastly different technical standards they suggest.  Both terms essentially communicate the idea that climate change science is sufficiently decided for policy makers to impose concrete policy strategies to counteract climate change.

While this is true generically, there are vast limitations to this statement, which are increasingly unappreciated in the popular political discourse.  The conflation between “consensus” and “certainty” is creating inaccurate perceptions of the clarity of climate-change science and unrealistic expectations about its ability to translate into effective government policy.[16] If the past presages the future, the risk of that climate-change science will disappoint the public’s expectations and trigger a minor or major political backlash are high.

Significant uncertainties plague projections of climate change and its consequences . . .  Policymakers struggle with the need to make decisions that have far-reaching and often irreversible effects on both environment and society with sparse and imprecise information . . . Uncertainties arise from such factors as linguistic imprecision, statistical variation, measurement error, variability, approximation, subjective judgment, and disagreement. These problems are compounded by the global scale of climate change, but local scales of impacts, long time lags between forcing and response, low-frequency climate variability that exceeds the length of most instrumental records, and the impossibility of before-the-fact experimental controls.[17]

The ultimate source of uncertainty[18] in climate-change science is systemic. The climate system, and its interaction with the human and natural world, is a paradigmatic example of what scientists call a “complex dynamic interactive system.”[19] Like other complex systems, slight miscalibrations in a system’s initial inputs are compounded as they interact with other elements at successive stages of complexity.  Schneider describes “the process whereby uncertainty accumulates throughout the process of climate change prediction and impact assessment has been variously described as a ‘cascades of uncertainty.’”[20]

To make matters worse, in complex problems, additional research will not necessarily reduce the amount of uncertainty for years or even decades because as one one’s understanding of the problem grows richer the amount of uncertainty, as measured by our ability to make specific predictions, remains unchanged.  In fact, complex systems can actually become less certain over time as research reveals processes or complications that had not previously been understood or anticipated.[21] While many issues have become considerably more established in climate-change science since it first emerged as a field of study, other issues have become significantly more complex.[22]

Despite the intrinsic uncertainty of complex systems like the climate, the scientific community has amplified  the rhetoric suggesting that climate-change science is “certain.”  For example, the most recent U.S. assessment of climate-change science states in its opening sentence: “Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal.”^[23] The critical word is “unequivocal,” which had never been used to frame the status of climate-change science in previous official assessments.^[24]

“It is an interesting word to use and this is the first time we’ve used it,” said Susan Solomon, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado while speaking at America’s Climate Choices Summit in March 2009.[25]

“Unequivocal” contemplates a spectrum of specific meanings ranging from “unambiguous” and “certain.”  In information theory, “equivocation” is a technical term used to describe a situation where there is sufficient certainty about a phenomenon to render whatever uncertainty remains effectively irrelevant. The more troubling implication of using “unequivocal” to frame climate-change science is that it invokes a number of negative connotations.  To equivocate is to mislead someone intentionally.  Unlike its converse, equivocal is construed to mean “misleading” – often unintentionally.[26]

By using “unequivocal,” the assessment suggests that those who contest climate-change science have ulterior motives for their efforts.  Ironically, by suggesting that climate change doubters are disingenuous or intentionally misleading, the U.S. science establishment is engaging in exactly the sort of soft-censorship it appears to condemn.  Still more troubling, many leading climate scientists have argued that the media should not publish or publicize the views of climate-change skeptics.[27]

While there are many documented efforts to obfuscate the public’s perception of the status of climate-change science, the Bush administration and corporations responsible for funding these efforts have paid an enormous price for doing so.^[28] President Bush has lost any trace of credibility among mainstream American voters on the global warming issue. (Placeholder1)  The Bush administration’s controversial policies on climate change have become an enormous liability for the Republican Party, rendering them essentially powerless over influencing the public debate over proposed emerging energy and environmental policies.

The history of nuclear energy in the U.S. is a cautionary tale for the long-term consequences of “sanitized” science.[29] Science is simply no match for credibility in winning public acceptance for any given public policy.  Credibility is absolutely essential to persuading the public to support policies based on the implications of climate-change science.  And climate-change policy advocates are exposing their credibility to serious risks by indulging an overconfident political rhetoric.  In the U.S., scientists are held in high-esteem by the public.[30] Ironically, the public’s sentiment is not reciprocated.  Scientists offer unfavorable, if not critical, assessments of the public’s knowledge and expectations. A whopping 85 percent of scientists say the public’s lack of scientific knowledge is a major problem for science, and 49 percent fault the public for having unrealistic expectations about the speed of scientific achievements.

Public attitudes are notoriously fickle.  Scientists are surely no exception.  The public’s support is not necessarily a given and should be expended cautiously.  One likely reason the public has a favorable opinion of scientists is the popular belief that scientists are non-partisan sources of reliable information.  The public may feel differently about scientists (and implicitly the policies scientists support) if they knew that the majority of scientists describe themselves as politically liberal (only 20 percent of the public describes themselves as politically liberal).^[31] To make matters worse, scientists and the public have different attitudes toward key issues in science policy.

Americans are far less likely to view scientists favorably if they are associated with the pursuit of specific political agendas.  In other words, as Winston Churchill put it, “scientists belong on tap, but not on top.”  This is especially so if the public begins to associate scientists with the heavy-handed rhetoric commonly used by environmental groups and activists to persuade members of the public to support aggressive climate policies.  In particular, the increasingly common use of medical metaphors to frame climate change issues – e.g. “the planet has a fever” – has an emotional force that tends to short-circuit the reasoning process.  The emerging effort to transform climate change into a public health issue is increasing the frequency of this heavy handed rhetoric and amplifying the risk of a political backlash.

What Drives Scientific Controversies Like Global Warming?

Climate change is hardly the first scientific frontier to trigger a political controversy.  On the contrary, while climate science is perhaps more complex than previous political controversies implicating science, the parameters of the public debate have followed a familiar pattern.  Like other politically sensitive scientific issues, popular support or opposition for the political implications of climate-change science can be construed as a disagreement over the quantum of evidence needed to establish a scientific “fact.”  Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are a compelling example of this point.  GMO shave galvanized a still-growing body of scientific research that supports the safety of GMOs in mainstream food supplies.  Most advocates of the use of GMOs believe this research has established the safety of GMOs as a “scientific fact.”  Conversely, those opposed to the use of GMOs do not believe the scientific research meets the evidentiary burden required to establish the safety of GMOs as a “scientific fact.”  Stem cells has followed a similar trajectory.

While most members of the public will accept a “claim about the world” as a “scientific fact” after the evidence supporting it as such has crossed some threshold, there is commonly a group of hardcore skeptics who refuse to believe that the science is conclusive – even if it places them well beyond the bounds of rationality.  Ultimately, their opposition is not driven by logic but by deep-seeded doubts about the limits of human knowledge.  In particular, they worry about the potential unintended consequences of ignoring those limits.  Psychologists have pioneered the so-called “psychometric paradigm of risk perception” that explores these intuitive forces.

Psychometrics has demonstrated that risk perception is highly dependent on intuition, experiential thinking, and emotions.  Psychometric research has identified a broad domain of characteristics that may be condensed into three high order factors:

• the degree to which a risk is understood,
• the degree to which it evokes a feeling of dread, and
• the number of people exposed to the risk. ^[32]

A dread risk elicits visceral feelings of terror, uncontrollable, catastrophe, inequality, and uncontrolled. An unknown risk is new and unknown to science. The more a person dreads an activity, the higher its perceived risk and the more that person wants the risk reduced.  And doubt is hardly the only intuitive force driving human preferences and behaviors when faced with a looming risk.

People are more prone to overconfidence than they are to unreasonable skepticism.[33] In particular, people commonly overestimate the power and reach of human knowledge.  Psychometric research has shown that experts are not necessarily any better at estimating probabilities than lay people and are often overconfident in the exactness of their estimates and over-reliant on small samples of data.^[34] The tension between these two tendencies has manifested itself in human culture and politics in various forms over the course of history: hubris and humility, art and science or man and nature and countless others forms.

Climate Change Implicates Moral Views

The debate over the integrity of climate-change science is a proxy for the same forces that have collided in controversies over science and technology for millennia.  The principal wedge that divides people on these issues is competing intuitions about the appropriate relationship between humanity and the natural world.  While the phraseology varies, these moral sensibilities are commonly characterized as Man v. God, Man v. Nature or simply Hubris v. Humility.  From Icarus to Frankenstein, the risks associated with hubris and “playing God” continue to animate objections to stem-cell research and synthetic biology.  Conversely, the impulse to defy “natural” limitations has expanded the carrying capacity of Earth and the average life expectancy to levels once deemed impossible.  While there are reasons to respect both impulses, public policy must steer clear of either extreme or risk provoking a potentially irreversible backlash.

Advocacy efforts focused on the “certainty” of climate-change science as a rhetorical tool to promote the public’s support for climate policy could jeopardize future public support unintentionally.  The principal problem is credibility.  By encouraging “sanitized” perceptions about the status of climate-change science,
“certainty” rhetoric risks creating unrealistic expectations about the ability of climate science to shape a policy response to climate change.  If climate-change science proves as fickle as any other similarly complex scientific frontier, the public may lose confidence in the value of climate science for purposes of guiding policy.  Catastrophic predictions made decades ago are still recycled today as reason to doubt similar predictions made about the looming impact of climate change.[35] Skeptics continue to cite bogus predictions made in the 1960s and 1970s about population bombs and global cooling as evidence of why people should doubt today’s climate change advocates.

Evidence of the risks associated with the “certainty” rhetoric has already begun to surface.  Gallup’s 2009 Environment Survey indicated that a record-high 41 percent believe global warming is exaggerated in popular media reports, the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.^[36] In 2006, significantly more Americans believed the media underestimated the seriousness of global warming rather than overestimated it – 38 percent vs. 30 percent respectively.[37]

Logic & Experience: An Alternative Heuristic

To the extent scientists play a role in the political debate over climate-change policy, they would be wise to adopt a judicial approach – literally.[38]

“The life of the law has not been logic, but experience,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in The Common Law.^[39] Holmes insisted that the court consider the facts in a changing society rather than reiterate wooden rules and formulas designed for a different world.  This dynamism has allowed the common law to develop along with society.[40]

For example, the common-law of evidence has adapted to the advent of “scientific expertise” by relying on the so-called Daubert^[41] doctrine, which holds that scientific expert testimony is only admissible if a trial judge finds it meets certain indicia of reliability.

The trial judge . . . must make a preliminary assessment of whether the testimony’s underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue. Many considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.^[42]

In other words, Daubert champions the process as a way of remaining agnostic about the product.  If scientific findings were reached through a sound process, the jury should be able to make up its mind as to its value.  The key is to exclude scientific testimony that is likely to mislead the jury.  Judges are required to exclude scientific evidence if it does not meet widely accepted standards of reliability within the scientific community.  The resulting impartiality has ensured the integrity of the judicial process and the role of judges as neutral arbiters.  Climate-change advocates are likely to remain credible with the public if they emphasize their role as gatekeepers of climate-change science.  This sentiment has attracted some support already in the scientific community.

Effective use of scientific knowledge must be accompanied by a deep understanding of human values upon which civilization has been built. This duet of scientific knowledge and social wisdom goes beyond the protocols needed in a research laboratory. Human societies in rural settings, though simple and based upon livestock, have proved to be sustainable over millennia and deserve respect. Scientific knowledge and social wisdom must proceed together to understand the local and global matrices of human affairs. This has always been the posture of good science – until recently. Today the newly emerged worldview of many scientists sets caution aside and moves into immediate use of the new molecular genetic techniques in food. Scientists who question this position are often seen by their peers as heretics.^[43]

Meanwhile, many members of the scientific community appear to be doing the opposite.  In particular, many prominent members of the scientific community have expressed doubts about the ability of carbon emissions caps and other preferred climate-change policies to successfully manage the threat of climate change.[44] Instead, they have increasingly focused their efforts on geoengineering, despite the risks of leading to a backlash likely to result from backing geoengineering.^[45]

How climate policy won support in US?

Climate-change politics have been construed in the U.S. primarily in existential terms, namely: is it happening?[46] People who believe climate change is real will presumably support political action to mitigate it.  In this view, political support for government action on climate change can be viewed as a continuum defined at one extreme by those “who believe scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is happening” and, at the other extreme, those who “believe that there is either a lot of disagreement among scientists or that most scientists say global warming is not happening.”[47]

As a result, the conventional wisdom for promoting the public’s support of climate-change policies has been to convince people that the science unambiguously supports the following assertions: global warming is happening, humans are causing it and it is very likely to be harmful to humans.[48] While this strategy seems to have succeeded in making climate-change a major issue in the most recent presidential election cycle, it may have been less important than many suspect.

The evidence suggests that traditional coalition building strategies and the convergence of multiple policy goals around climate change have had more influence on public support for climate change policy than scientific proselytizing.[49] This is especially so at the international level where the likelihood of reaching a global climate-change agreement increases as negotiators are able to link the agreement with exogenous policies like economic growth,.[50] An emerging body of research supports the argument that by focusing on the development of breakthrough technologies, climate-change negotiations are far more likely to attract international support.[51]

Although the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a landmark energy and climate legislation, the political momentum behind climate-change policies per se is not necessarily as robust as the success of this legislation suggests.  For example, only a third of Americans said they worry about global warming “a great deal” in 2008, which is roughly the same as the percentage measured 19 years ago by the same Gallup survey.[52] Rather than the public’s support for climate policy changing, it appears that the nature of climate-change policy has changed.  And so it has.

The convergence of climate-change policy with a number of other policy goals has converted climate policy into the proverbial “long pole in the tent.”^[53] This convergence is evident in the “environmental” and “economic” benefits included in the Bali Roadmap.^[54] Specifically, these benefits include:

• Economic Growth and Prosperity
• Quality of Life, Health and Respect for the Environment
• Secure, Reliable, Affordable, Clean Energy Supply
• National Security and Global Stability
• Climate Protection

Considering the convergence of climate-change and other policy goals with broad public support, it is likely that the rhetoric surrounding the status of climate-change science has had less of an impact on the domestic U.S. debate than many image.  Accordingly, the risks associated with escalating this rhetoric and the lack of any potential reward strongly suggest the wisdom in rethinking this strategy altogether.[55]

Conclusion

Global warming is a symptom of a fundamental imbalance between the impact of human life and natural limits of the planet Earth.  Thomas Malthus was the first to diagnose the problem formally, but the psychological forces Malthus tapped are timeless.  Whether we describe the problem in terms of overpopulation or global warming, the solution must address the same issue – how can human life coexist with nature?  Is it more dangerous to tinker or more dangerous not to tinker?   Is the answer hubris or humility?  This is the debate playing out quietly in the subtext of global warming.  The most resilient climate policies will reflect these fundamental concerns in ways that avoid alienating large segments of the public and promotes public support despite uncertainties.

Predicting the future is only helpful when we know enough to make those predictions meaningful.^[56] When meaningful prediction is not possible, strategies should focus on policies that remain robust across a wide range of possible futures warrant careful consideration.^[57] While environmental campaigns and high-profile advocacy from the likes of Al Gore have raised the issue’s public profile, historical analogs suggest that those efforts are unlikely to catalyze long-lasting political will of the sort needed for climate policy to be effective. To appreciate the risks of losing credibility on global warming issues, one need only consider the legacy of the nuclear energy.

[2] U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking, January 2009 (p. 3).

[3] Patt, A. G. and D. P. Schrag, 2003: Using Specific language to Describe Risk and Probability. Climatic Change, 61, 17-30.

[4] See id.

[5] Edward Muskie coined the term to describe “on the one hand . . . and on the other hand” advisers.

[6] For example, Henry Paulson did not identify ranges of potential outcomes likely to result from if Congress failed to pass the U.S. bank bailout, but simply stated “If it doesn’t pass, then heaven help us all.” Deborah Solomon, “Shock Forced Paulson’s Hand,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 2008, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186563104158747.html.

[7] See Dilling L, Moser SC. Introduction. in: Moser SC, Dilling L, eds. Creating A Climate For Change: Communicating Climate Change And Facilitating Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007:1–27.

[8] See Moser SC, Dilling L., “Making climate hot: communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change,” Environ 2004; 46:33– 46.

[9] Edward W. Maibach, PhD, Connie Roser-Renouf, PhD, Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD, Communication and Marketing As Climate Change–Intervention Assets: A Public Health Perspective, Am J Prev Med 2008;35(5) – p. 496.

[10] See Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Lowe L, Visser PS, The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concerns about global warming, Clim Change 2006; 77:7– 43.

[11] Edward W. Maibach, PhD, Connie Roser-Renouf, PhD, Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD, Communication and Marketing As Climate Change–Intervention Assets: A Public Health Perspective, Am J Prev Med 2008;35(5) – p. 496.

[12] Bord RJ, O’Connor RE, Fisher A., In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding Sci 2000; 9:199–212.

[13] Related research has shown that climate literacy—knowledge of the causes of and solutions to global warming—was so poor among the U.S. public that it couldn’t explain any of the variance among U.S. residents in terms of risk perceptions, policy preferences, or behaviors.  See Leiserowitz A., Global warming in the American mind: the roles of affect, imagery, and worldviews in risk perception, policy preferences and behavior, Dissertation. Eugene OR: University of Oregon, 2003 (notably, Leiserowitz also found no significant relationship between accurate knowledge of climate change causes and solutions on the one hand and risk perceptions, policy preferences, or reported behaviors on the other).

[14] Lutz was considered to be the principal architect of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America.”

[15] The Luntz Research Companies – Straight Talk (“Luntz Memorandum”), p. 137 (emphasis in original).

[16] “Consensus” and “certainty” are only example of how advocacy efforts have transformed the public’s perception of the status of climate-change status.  Another example is the use of the terms “truth” and “hoax” – e.g. “An Inconvenient Truth” v. “Greatest Hoax in History.”

[17] Stephen Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, John Niles, Climate Change Policy: A Survey – Chapter 2: by Stephen H. Schneider and Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti, Uncertainty and Climate Change Policy. (pages 54-55).

[18] A number of different terms are used for what this paper calls ‘uncertainty.’ Knight (1921) distinguished risk from uncertainty, using the latter to denote factors poorly described by quantified probabilities. Ben-Haim (2001) refers to severe uncertainty and Vercelli (1994) to hard as opposed to the more traditional soft uncertainty. The literature on imprecise probabilities refers to probabilities that can lie within a range.  Also, “deep uncertainty.”

[19] M. Granger Morgan and Hadi Dowlatabadi, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making (January 16, 2009, p. 8.)

[20] Stephen Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, John Niles, Climate Change Policy: A Survey – Chapter 2: by Stephen H. Schneider and Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti, Uncertainty and Climate Change Policy. (page 67).

[21] See M. Granger Morgan and Hadi Dowlatabadi, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making (January 16, 2009, p. 114).

[22] The history of the U.S. Global Change Research Program reflects at least one reasons for this added complexity.  Initially, the program treated the climate as one of seven “earth systems,” which shared similarly scale and scope.  In the two decades since the USGCRP began, the climate, or more specifically “climate-change,” has become the lens through which the remaining six systems are investigated.

[23] Executive Summary, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, January 2009. P. 9.

[24] Unlike many other disciplines, climate-change research is acutely aware of the phraseology used to describe uncertainty and communicate probability.   Most institutional initiatives will include an entire working group devoted to addressing these issues of uncertainty and probability.

[25] Certainty and Uncertainty in Climate Science–Framing a Basis for Decisions, Presentation by Susan Solomon, NOAA, at the National Academies of Sciences, March, 2009.

[26] See Princeton’s Wordnet definition of “equivocate” – “(v) beat around the bush, equivocate, tergiversate, prevaricate, palter (be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information)” (Wordnet)

[27] See Stephen Schneider’s analysis if global warming in the media, available at http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html.

[28] See Smoke, Mirrors & Hot: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists (January 2007) page 17 (“There is no denying that the tactic of demanding “certainty” in every aspect of our scientific understanding of global warming is a rhetorically effective one. If manufactured uncertainty and governmental inaction is the goal, science will arguably never be “sound enough,” or 100 percent certain, to justify action to protect public health or the environment.”)

[29] See Samuel Walker,Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), p. 10-30.

[30] In early 2009, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted a national survey in the United States assessing public attitudes toward science and scientists that suggested that the public holds science and scientists in high esteem. See Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media, Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than A Decade Ago, July 9, 2009.

[31] Ironically, scientists are actually far more liberal than the public generally—55 percent of scientists say they are Democrats (compared with 35 percent of the public).  See id.(more than half of the scientists in the Pew Center survey described themselves as “liberals;” which is more than double the percentage of those in the general public who describe themselves that way).

[32] See Gregory, Robin & Robert Mendelsohn. “Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits.” Risk Analysis 13(3) (1993): 259–264

[33] Experts are hardly immune from the overconfidence bias. Research has shown that people are correct less often than their confidence assessments imply. (Kahneman and Lovallo, 1993, Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, 1996 Kahneman et al., 1982, Tversky and Kahneman, 1974, 1983).

[34] See Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, Sarah Lichtenstein. “Why Study Risk Perception?” Risk Analysis 2(2) (1982): 83–93.

[35] See Charles A.S. Hall, “The Ehrlichs Strike Again,” 59 BioScience 6, June 1, 2009 (reviewing history of catastrophic predictions made by American biologist Paul Ehrlich that conspicuously failed to materialize).

[36] Lydia Saad, Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”, May 11, 2009 (Gallup’s 2009 Environment Survey) available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased‐Number‐Think‐Glo…

[37] Since 1997, Republicans have grown increasingly likely to believe media coverage of global warming is exaggerated, and that trend continues in the 2009 survey; however, this year marks a relatively sharp increase among independents as well. In just the past year, Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, and independents from 33 percent to 44 percent, while the rate among Democrats remained close to 20 percent.

[38] An alternative communications strategy would frame the status of climate change science (especially the systemic uncertainty inherent in climate science) as an interpretation of the science and its implications that strikes an acceptable balance between hubris and humility.  While this may seem too abstract for purposes of advising decision makers, similar abstractions have served as the foundation of modern common-law jurisprudence for more than a century.

[39] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common-Law (1881), p. 1.

[40] Holmes also helped shape the doctrine of “judicial restraint” which urged judges to avoid letting their personal opinions affect their decisions.

[41] Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

[42] Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) p. 12-15.

[43] John Hodges, Foundations, fallacies, and assumptions of science for livestock in development, Presented at: UN IAEA-FAO International Symposium on Sustainable Improvement of Animal Production and Health, 8-11 June 2009, IAEA, Vienna.

[44] An international group of academics is urging world leaders to abandon their current policies on climate change.

The authors of How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course say the strategy based on overall emissions cuts has failed and will continue to fail. They want G8 nations and emerging economies to focus on an approach based on improving energy efficiency and decarburizing energy supply. The report is published by the London School of Economics’ (LSE) Mackinder Programme and the University of Oxford’s Institute for Science, Innovation & Society. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8138429.stm

[45] See David G. Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke, “The Geoengineering Option,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009.

[46] This variety of research predates the Bush administration. See Jon A. Krosnik, The Impact of the Fall 1997 Debate about Global Warming on American Public Opinion (2000).

[47] See Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD, Six Americas.

[48] See Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD, Six Americas, p. 22. (“Communicators should help them understand that outlier views in the scientific community are outlier views. (If your child were seriously ill, would you allow her to be treated by the one pediatrician out of 100 who took a contrarian perspective?)”).

[49] The literature on international environmental agreements has explored competing strategies for expanding the size of a stable coalition.  The key seems to be linking the environmental policy with extra positive externalities like an R&D agreement with larger spillovers between coalition members. See Carraro and Siniscalco, 1997.

[50] Ibid.

[51] See Michael Hoel and Aart de Zeeuw, Can A Focus On Breakthrough Technologies Improve The Performance Of International Environmental Agreements?, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 15043 (available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15043). P.14-15.

[52] See “Little Increase in Americans’ Global Warming Worries,” April 21, 2008 (available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-Americans-Global-Warming-Worries.aspx).

[53] See Climate Change Technology – Perspectives on Future Prospects and Challenges, Dr. Robert C. Marlay, Ph.D., P.E.,

Deputy Director, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, Speaking at National Academy of Sciences – “America’s Climate Choices Panel on Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Chang,.” January 8, 2009 (Washington, DC).

[54] In particular, this take on the benefits of climate change reflects the Bali Roadmap for a Post-2012 Agreement.

[55] See Edward W. Maibach, PhD, Connie Roser-Renouf, PhD, Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD, Communication and Marketing As Climate Change–Intervention Assets A Public Health Perspective, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (2008;35(5):488–500).

[56] Past efforts to make meaningful predictions about the future based on present knowledge is replete with cautionary tales. See Smil, V., Energy at the Crossroads. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2003), Chapters 3-6.

[57] CCSP 5.2 – p.155 (January 16, 2009).

Corporate R&D spending rose globally by 6.9 percent in 2008, according to the “2009 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard.”  The Scorecard, published annually by the European Commission, covers the top 1000 EU companies and 1000 non-EU companies investing in R&D in the last reporting year.

With an 8.1 percent increase, the R&D investment growth of EU companies is significantly higher than US companies for the second year at 5.7 percent and Japanese companies at 4.4 percent. EU companies managed to maintain their R&D investment growth barely unchanged at 8.1 percent from 8.8 percent in 2007, whereas that of US companies fell from 8.6 percent in 2007 to 5.7 percent in 2008. Companies based in emerging economies continued to show the highest R&D growth, led by China with a 40 percent increase, India (27.3 percent), Taiwan (25.1 percent) and Brazil (18.6 percent).

“It is good news that EU companies kept up their R&D investment against the background of the economic crisis in 2008. This is the best strategy to emerge stronger out of the crisis . . . I also welcome the increase of R&D investment by EU companies active on low carbon energy technologies. They represent new sources of EU growth and jobs”, said European Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik.

The world’s biggest investor in R&D was Toyota Motor, with €7.61 billion. Among the top ten R&D investors there are five from the US, including Microsoft, General Motors and Pfizer.  Two EU companies ranked in the Top 10: Volkswagen in the 3rd place with an R&D investment of €5.93 billion and Nokia in the 8th place.

The R&D growth in the US is dominated by the high R&D intensity sectors, which includes Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology and IT sectors, while R&D growth in the EU is more evenly spread across all sectors. This year’s Scoreboard confirms the strong R&D activity of companies active in renewable energy technologies.

Under either a cap-and-trade program that limits carbon emissions or a carbon tax that imposes an outright tax on these emissions, the poor may be among the hardest hit. Because they spend a greater share of their income on energy than higher-income families, households in the lowest fifth of the income distribution could shoulder a relative burden that is 1.4 to 4 times higher than that of households in the top fifth of the income distribution.  The analysis shows that the burden on the poorest households doubles when a price on carbon is targeted narrowly on energy consumption (and not other energy uses) rather than broadly across all industries.

Previous research already has suggested that a carbon tax would probably be regressive. This study furthers the analysis by making three key points. First, by linking the amount of carbon emissions from each industry to consumer expenditures by income group, the authors show that consumption differences explain the regressivity of a carbon tax. Assuming a levy of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide, which is in the range of current proposals in Congress, the authors calculate that the one-fifth of households at the bottom of the income distribution would spend an extra $325 a year. Thats less than a third of what the one-fifth of households at the top of the income distribution would pay annually. However, households in the low-income group earn only one-tenth as much as those in the high-income group on average, so their burden relative to income would be almost four times higher.

Some economists argue that annual income, which changes over time, may be less accurate as a measure of household well-being than income measured over a lifetime. On the basis of lifetime income, the burden on the low-income households would be 1.4 times higher than it would be on their higher-income counterparts, this study finds.

Calculations relying on household data understate how regressive a price on carbon would really be since households in the highest income quintile are much larger — averaging 3.1 persons — than those in the lowest quintile — averaging only 1.8 persons.  The authors calculate that the real impact of a carbon tax on a person in the lowest income quintile would be nearly five times more burdensome than for someone in the top income quintile. Using lifetime income in this calculation, the burden would be 2.2 times greater.

The third key point is that the regressivity of a tax on carbon depends on how broadly its applied. If its levied on all greenhouse-gas emissions, then the burden on the lowest-income fifth of households would be 3.25 times as high as the burden for the highest-income fifth (1.4 times as high based on lifetime income). Per capita, the burden would be about five times higher (over twice as high based on lifetime income). If the tax only applied to consumption of energy goods, then the burden on low-income households would climb to nearly four times that of their higher-income counterparts annually (1.6 times, using lifetime income). Per capita, it would soar to six times annually (2.6 times, based on lifetime income). The authors conclude “that the regressivity of the policy is driven largely by direct energy consumption.

They offer several caveats about their study, which assumes that all costs are passed on to the consumer and dont affect workers wages or investors returns. Consumption is held fixed, and no attempt is made to simulate how consumers buying habits or companies production practices would change if the price of carbon went up. Nor does this study consider whether the benefits of a carbon tax would affect households at different points in the income distribution disproportionately through an effect on climate change.

The authors calculate that a $15 tax per ton of carbon dioxide would raise as much as $79 billion a year. Congress could use some of those revenues to mitigate the regressive effects of the tax. For example, an income tax break of $119, $112, $105, and $76 to individuals in the first four income quintiles, respectively, would balance the burden to about 1 percent of net annual income for each group, and still leave nearly $50 billion in government revenues, the authors calculate. Or, the revenue could alleviate the burden of other regressive taxes, such as the payroll tax.

Related articles by Zemanta

• California Takes Step to Limit Emissions (nytimes.com)
• A Bug, Not a Feature (gregmankiw.blogspot.com)
• Newsweek Releases a Green Ranking of America’s Biggest Companies (treehugger.com)
• CSA Standards urges investment in carbon measurement and management jobs to achieve sustainability goals (newswire.ca)
• Inhofe Questioned About Manipulating Climate Polling Data (desmogblog.com)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has raised the standard for large U.S.- flagged ships with harmful marine diesel emissions.  The new regulation will bring the U.S. into accord with international standards and result in susbtantial air-quality improvements for the nation.

“There are enormous health and environmental consequences that come from marine diesel emissions, affecting both port cities and communities hundreds of miles inland. Stronger standards will help make large ships cleaner and more efficient, and protect millions of Americans from harmful diesel emissions,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Port communities have identified diesel emissions as one of the greatest health threats facing their people.”

Air pollution from large ships, such as oil tankers and cargo ships, is expected to grow rapidly as port traffic increases. By 2030, the new standard will reduce NOX emissions from ships by an estimated 80 percent, and PM emissions by 85 percent, compared to current emissions.  This will prevent between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths and 1.4 million work days lost according to EPA estimates.

The estimated annual health benefits in 2030 as a result of reduced air pollution are valued between $110 and $270 billion, which is up to nearly 90 times the projected cost of $3.1 billion to achieve those results. This rule, under the Clean Air Act, complements a key piece of EPA’s strategy to designate an emissions control area (ECA) for thousands of miles of U.S. and Canadian coasts. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency, is set to vote in March 2010 on the adoption of the joint U.S.-Canada ECA, which would result in stringent standards for large foreign-flagged and domestic ships operating within the designated area.

President Barack Obama’s remarks Friday at the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen:

“Good morning. It is an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you — like me — were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. This much we know.

“The question, then, before us is no longer the nature of the challenge — the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, I have to be honest, as the world watches us today, I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now, and it hangs in the balance.

“I believe we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of a common threat. That’s why I come here today — not to talk, but to act.

“Now, as the world’s largest economy and as the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That’s why we’ve renewed our leadership within international climate change negotiations. That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. That’s why we’ve taken bold action at home — by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

“These mitigation actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet global responsibilities. We are convinced, as some of you may be convinced, that changing the way we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future — that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industries, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. We’re convinced, for our own self-interest, that the way we use energy, changing it to a more efficient fashion, is essential to our national security, because it helps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and helps us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

“So I want this plenary session to understand, America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move towards a clean energy economy, no matter what happens here in Copenhagen. We think it is good for us, as well as good for the world. But we also believe that we will all be stronger, all be safer, all be more secure if we act together. That’s why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to certain steps, and to hold each other accountable to certain commitments.

“After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear.

“First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

“Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we’re living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

“I don’t know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn’t make sense. It would be a hollow victory.

“Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if — and only if — it is part of a broader accord that I have just described.

“Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It’s a clear formula — one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord — one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

“I just want to say to this plenary session that we are running short on time. And at this point, the question is whether we will move forward together or split apart, whether we prefer posturing to action. I’m sure that many consider this an imperfect framework that I just described. No country will get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and no obligations with respect to transparency. They think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price; I understand that. There are those advanced nations who think that developing countries either cannot absorb this assistance, or that will not be held accountable effectively, and that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

“We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor — one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.

“Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

“Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it’s time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

“We are ready to get this done today — but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past — and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet. Thank you very much.”

China stands alone among the world’s leading vehicle producers in that it has seen substantial and continuous growth in its production level since 2000.  In 2005, North America and western Europe each produced more than three times as many vehicles as China.  By 2008, total U.S. production dropped by over 3.2 million units. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service reveals the likely impact of China’s rising automobile industry on the U.S. economy.  Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary:

“The automobile industry, a key sector in China’s industrialization and modernization efforts, has been developing rapidly since the 1990s. In recent years, China has become the world’s fastest growing automotive producer. Annual vehicle output has increased from less than 2 million vehicles in the late 1990s to 9.5 million in 2008. In terms of production volume in 2008, China has surpassed Korea, France, Germany, and the United States, trailing only Japan. A disproportionate share of China’s output was heavy vehicles in the 1990s. However, since 2000 China’s growth has been led by an increase in passenger cars, which now account for more than 65% of its vehicle production.

“China’s automobile industry has continued to expand despite the global economic downturn. From January to October 2009, more than 10 million vehicles were sold in China. If such growth continues, China is on its way to becoming world’s largest auto market.

“Unlike Korea or Japan, China’s automotive industry has developed extensively through foreign direct investment. This investment has come in the form of alliances and joint ventures between international automobile manufacturers and Chinese partners. The international automobile manufacturers are unlikely to promote Chinese exports that compete with their own products in other markets. As a consequence, the Chinese companies that have expressed a strong interest in exporting cars have not had strong ties to foreign car producers and that, consequently, may struggle to meet safety and emission standards in industrialized countries. However, if independent producers, such as Geely, can achieve much higher standards, they could prove to be a strong international competitor. Ford’s proposed sale of Volvo to Geely may help the Chinese company improve its products.

“China exports and imports few motor vehicles. Exports are growing much more rapidly than imports and are mostly light trucks and passenger cars shipped to developing country markets. By contrast, Chinese auto parts exports are already making inroads into the United States and other developed markets. While U.S. motor vehicle trade with China was insignificant in 2008, the United States imported more than $5.5 billion in parts from China, while it exported about oneeighth of that amount. Many of these imports are aimed at the aftermarket, as most of what China now exports to the U.S. market are standard products such as brake parts, electrical and electronic parts, and seating and interior trim. But with high rates of investment and strong growth in China by the leading U.S. manufacturers of both cars and parts, major motor vehicle companies are likely to increase sourcing from China.

“There have been a significant number of trade disputes with China ranging from implementation of obligations that were made when China joined the WTO, China’s exchange rate policy, lax trade law enforcement, and alleged subsidies to industrial producers. With a bilateral U.S. trade deficit that rose to more than $268 billion in 2008, representatives of the Obama administration, as well as many Members of Congress, would like to achieve more balance in U.S.-China trade relations.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Imbalances recurring (economist.com)
• According to one economist, the US economy could be better off if China stopped buying US debt (iflizwerequeen.com)
• Exporting blame to China | Mark Weisbrot (guardian.co.uk)
• Why US Manufacturing Matters (slideshare.net)

Courtesty of National Science Foundation

The banks behind the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) – the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the World Bank – have pledged nearly one billion dollars  for a new Clean Technology Fund (CTF)  to accelerate global deployment of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). It will do so by investing in five countries: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia.

The CTF projects on deploying CSP at a commercial-scale over a 3-5 year timeframe is expected to avoid about 1.7 million tons of carbon dioxide per year from the energy sectors of the countries. The transformational objective of this investment plan is served by accelerating cost reduction for a technology that could become least-cost globally, and then be replicated in other countries with high greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable Energy Portfolio Graphic

Last week, West Virginia Governor signed a bill relating to the state’s Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act (AREP), House Bill 408D.    The bill includes provisions for the establishment of a REC tracking system.

The bill requires the Public Service Commission to establish a system of tradable credits to verify and monitor the generation and sale of electricity generated from alternative and renewable energy resource facilities.   The credits may be traded, sold or used to meet the portfolio standards.   While the AREP allows “alternative” fuels such as natural gas and clean coal to count toward compliance, it awards a credit multiplier for renewable energy credits.

With energy accounting for 84% of global CO2 emissions, the IEA has analysed what needs to be done to limit the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 equivalent, in line with a 2°C increase in global temperature. On current trends, unless new measures are taken, global energy-related CO2 emissions will reach 40 Gigatonnes (Gt) by 2030 (29 Gt in 2007) and continue rising thereafter, whereas climate stabilisation requires emissions to peak around 2020 and then decline. “The 450 Policy scenario of our flagship publication World Energy Outlook 2009 is the right path to green growth but it is a radical departure from current trends,” Mr. Tanaka stressed. For instance, the world would need to retire a significant portion of today’s coal-fired electricity plants before the end of their lifetime – by 2030, early closures around the world would amount to the equivalent of today’s total coal-based power generation in Japan, EU and the US. Around 60% of global electricity production in 2030 would need to come from a mix of renewables (37%), nuclear (18%) and plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (5%). Another illustration is the dramatic shift needed in car sales, with hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles representing 60% of sales in 2030, from around 1% today.

The bulk of the emissions reduction could be delivered by energy efficiency, accounting for over half of total abatement by 2030 in the IEA 450 Scenario. Energy efficiency is an absolute prerequisite for the deployment of the more expensive, low-carbon energy supply as it helps lowering demand first. IEA finds that the additional investment can be recouped by end-users through lower energy bills: in industry, buildings and transport, the additional USD 8.3 trillion of required investment would lead to USD 8.6 trillion in savings between now and 2030. “Sharing best policy practice in energy efficiency, and building capacity for implementation should be a priority area for any support from developed to developing countries coming out of Copenhagen,” Mr. Tanaka said. “The social, economic, environmental and energy security benefits of energy efficiency are too large to be missed, yet experience shows that proper policy frameworks are needed to reap these benefits. We are encouraged by the development of energy efficiency policies in countries like China, India, Brazil or South Africa,” Mr. Tanaka added.

To support a global transition to more efficient, low-carbon energy systems, the IEA estimates that USD 10.5 trillion (with USD 8.3 trillion in end-use) are needed by 2030. With such effort, global CO2 emissions would decline after 2020, and be lower than today’s level by 2030. “Countries’ announcements in preparation for Copenhagen are encouraging. Although more is needed to be on track with our 450 scenario, with current pledges, if implemented, more in line with a 550 ppm scenario (leading to a 3 degree increase in global temperature). The results in the 2020-2030 decade will be crucial, as this is when most new technologies need to be deployed. The wave of investments that will come with the economic recovery must be climate friendly. A strong signal is needed now. Every year of delay adds USD 500 billion to the energy sector cost of reaching 450 ppm,” Mr. Tanaka stressed.

The IEA has produced several roadmaps on key technologies to meet that challenge, and to guide environmental and energy decision makers on the path to needed innovations (e.g. on carbon capture and storage, wind, electric vehicle and cement manufacturing). “A cost on CO2 is also critical to guide investors toward low-carbon choices,” Mr. Tanaka added. While the Clean Development Mechanism has achieved a lot in certain sectors, it has not curbed the growth in emissions in developing countries. Broader access to the carbon market ought to be a key element in a Copenhagen agreement, e.g. through sector- or policy-based market mechanisms in developing countries. The IEA has shown how such mechanisms could reduce CO2 emissions in key sectors like power generation, but these must be complemented by ambitious energy efficiency improvements on the end-use side.

“The energy path to stabilise climate is clear, but only vigorous action will put our economies on that path to green growth,” Mr. Tanaka emphasised. “A strong political signal is needed now in order to drive the necessary changes. The IEA will work with all countries to turn global climate goals into practical steps for the energy sector, including through the newly proposed international low-carbon energy technology platform,” Tanaka said. The platform which was endorsed by the IEA Ministerial meeting in October, will bring together policy makers, business representatives and technology experts to discuss how best to encourage the spread of clean energy technologies, with a view to doubling investments in RD&D by 2015. “The IEA will be evaluating the energy implications of any emission goal coming out of Copenhagen, to set a clear pathway for the energy sector,” Mr. Tanaka concluded.

U.S. forests and soils currently contain the equivalent of 50 years of carbon dioxide (CO₂), but have sufficient capacity to store significantly larger quantities of CO₂ from the atmosphere as a means to mitigate climate change, according to the findings of the first phase of a groundbreaking national assessment by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey.

The lower 48 states of the U.S. store 73 billion metric tons of carbon in soils and 17 billion metric tons in forests and have the potential to store an additional 3 to 7 billion metric tons of carbon in forests if agricultural lands were to be used for planting forests. This potential is equivalent to 2 to 4 years of America’s current CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels.

“Carbon pollution is putting our world—and our way of life—in peril,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in a keynote speech at the global conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark. “By restoring ecosystems and protecting certain areas from development, the U.S. can store more carbon in ways that enhance our stewardship of land and natural resources while reducing our contribution to global warming.”

To determine how much more carbon could be stored in forests and soils, USGS scientists analyzed maps that represent historical vegetation cover before human alterations, as well as maps of vegetation that might occur if there were no natural disturbances, such as fires, pests and drought. These maps were compared to maps of current vegetation and carbon storage.Despite this impressive potential, America’s forests and soils lack sufficient capacity for offsetting the nation’s accelerating pace of emissions.  Those forests and soils currently absorb about 30 percent (0.5 billion metric tons of carbon) of the nation’s fossil fuel emissions per year (1.6 billion metric tons of carbon). Enhancing the carbon storage capacity of America’s and the world’s ecosystems is an important tool to reduce carbon emissions and help ecosystems adapt to changing climate conditions.

The U.S Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is offering a second round of grants for innovative energy research projects that accelerate innovation in biofuels, electric vehicle batteries and carbon-capture technologies.

For biofuels, ARPA-E is seeking new ways to make liquid transportation fuels from carbon dioxide, without using petroleum or biomass. Instead, the intent is toemploy microorganisms to harness the chemical or electrical energy needed to convert carbon dioxide into liquid fuels. The objective is to develop an entirely new paradigm for the production of liquid fuels that could overcome the challenges associated with current technologies, including a dependence on biomass supplies or waste streams. While there are also approaches to produce liquid transportation fuels from sunlight and carbon dioxide using photosynthesis, these approaches suffer from low efficiencies. ARPA-E requests innovative proposals that can overcome these challenges through the use of metabolic engineering and synthetic biological approaches for the efficient conversion of carbon dioxide to liquid transportation fuels. Such approaches could be 10 times more efficient than current techniques that rely on photosynthetic biomass.

ARPA-E is also looking to develop a new generation of low-cost batteries with ultra-high energy densities for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles (EVs). ARPA-E’s objective is to fund high-risk, high-reward research efforts that will promote leadership in the emerging EV battery market. The development of high-energy, low-cost batteries represents the critical barrier to widespread deployment of EVs, which could improve U.S. oil security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and spur economic growth. If successful, new battery technologies developed under this program will give electrified light-duty vehicles the range, performance, lifetime, and cost required to shift transportation energy from oil to the domestically powered U.S. electric grid. See the DOE press release, DOE’s ARPA-E Web site, and the ARPA-E Web site for Funding Opportunity Announcements.

And on December 8, DOE announced the creation of the ARPA-E Fellows Program, which will consist of highly technical scientists and researchers who will actively help create the strategic direction and vision of ARPA-E. Fellows, selected for no more than two year terms, will support ARPA-E’s program directors in program creation, while also undertaking independent explorations of promising future research areas for the agency. They will also engage with world-class researchers and innovators to develop theses for high-impact ARPA-E research program areas, prepare energy technology and economic analyses, and make recommendations to DOE senior management.

And here it is . . .

Framework for Climate Action and Energy Independence in the U.S. Senate

Carbon pollution is altering the earth’s climate. The impacts have already been seen and felt throughout our country and around the world. Monday’s endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) underscores the importance of Congressional action to address greenhouse gas emissions before the EPA moves unilaterally.

This document outlines the principles and guidelines that will shape our ongoing efforts to develop comprehensive climate change and energy independence legislation. It is a starting point, inviting our colleagues’ constructive input.

Our efforts seek to build upon the significant work already completed in Congress. Earlier this year, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed bipartisan legislation that will instruct our efforts to promote and achieve energy security. Important work to reduce carbon emissions has taken place in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which additionally informs us. We also anticipate consideration of issues related to climate change by the Senate Finance, Commerce, and Agriculture Committees.

It is critical to emphasize that this framework is a work in progress. We will continue to engage with our constituents, colleagues in the Senate, and stakeholders outside Washington in our effort to build a consensus that will lead to the passage of comprehensive climate and energy legislation. The only way to succeed is through ongoing engagement and an honest effort to put all ideas on the table.

Better jobs, cleaner air. Our legislation will contain comprehensive pollution reduction targets that are both environmentally significant and achievable. It is our belief that a market-based system, rather than a labyrinth of command-and-control regulations, will allow us to reduce pollution economically and avoid the worst impacts of global climate change. It will also provide significant transition assistance to companies and consumers without using taxpayer dollars or driving up the national debt. We believe a near term pollution reduction target in the range of 17 percent below 2005 emissions levels is achievable and reasonable, as is a long term target of approximately 80 percent below 2005 levels. Finally, we believe a robust investment in the development and deployment of clean energy technologies will ensure that as pollution reduction targets become more rigorous, companies will be better equipped to meet their obligations in a cost effective manner.

Many business leaders have endorsed this approach. Just last week, David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell, as well as other business leaders, persuasively argued that setting a price on carbon would create demand for clean energy technologies and provide a tremendous opportunity for economic growth and job creation in America. He said: “There will be no jobs created without demand. This legislation would stimulate the demand for energy efficiency products and services and low carbon sources of energy. China and India are stimulating their domestic demand for these products and technologies much more aggressively than we are and will take the global competitiveness lead unless we act. Cap and trade enables businesses to use the market to most effectively and efficiently develop that 21st century global competitiveness.” Mr. Cote’s words have been echoed by other American business leaders including Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, who has said, “the sooner we pass climate change legislation—the better off our economy, and the world’s environment—will be. If we go about it the right way, we can not only avoid unnecessary economic harm and dislocation, but we can also ignite a lower carbon, green revolution and more rapidly put this recession in our rear view mirror.”

Securing energy independence. We find ourselves more dependent on foreign oil today than any other time in our nation’s history, and that is unacceptable. Every day, we spend nearly $1 billion to sustain our addiction to foreign energy sources—and we ship Americans’ hard earned dollars overseas, some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations. Presidents and politicians have bemoaned this fact for decades; and now is the moment when we can—and must—break that habit. By spurring the development and deployment of new clean energy technologies and increasing our supply of domestically produced oil and natural gas on land and offshore, our legislation will ensure America’s energy security. We will do so in a way that sends money back to the states that opt to drill and also provides new federal government revenues to advance climate mitigation goals. We will also encourage investments in energy efficiency because we believe that consuming less power will help keep energy bills down and simultaneously extend the life of our domestic energy resources. Finally, maintaining the ability to refine petroleum products in the United States is a national security priority. It is our belief that we can preserve our refining capacity without sacrificing our environmental goals. If energy independence is to be a priority, we must keep the entire energy cycle right here at home.

Creating regulatory predictability. By failing to legislate, Congress is ceding the policy reins to the EPA and ignoring our responsibility to our constituents. We are working with our colleagues, the Administration and outside stakeholders to strike a sensible balance and determine the appropriate way to provide regulatory predictability. We agree that providing the business community as much certainty as possible is essential to attract investment, create jobs and generate the confidence necessary to reach our goals. The absence of national greenhouse gas emissions standards has invited a patchwork of inconsistent state and regional regulations. Since it is not reasonable to expect businesses to comply with fifty different standards, it is imperative that a federal pollution control system be meaningful and be set by federally elected officials.

Protecting consumers. It is critical to provide transitional assistance to households and businesses to ease the shift to a low-carbon economy. We will provide support to help companies meet their compliance obligations and avoid driving up prices for energy consumers. We will include special protections for low- and middle-income Americans, who spend a disproportionately large amount of their income on energy. We are considering a number of mechanisms, including a price collar and strategic reserve, to moderate the price of carbon and prevent extreme market volatility while maintaining the environmental integrity of the pollution reduction program. Additionally, we support energy efficiency programs to help reduce energy bills long into the future.

Encouraging nuclear power. Additional nuclear power is an essential component of our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We strongly support incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, but successful legislation must also recognize the important role for clean nuclear power in our low-emissions future. America has lost its nuclear technology manufacturing base, and we must rebuild it in order to compete in the global marketplace. Our legislation will encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and provide funding to train the next generation of nuclear workers. We will make it easier to finance the construction of new nuclear power plants and improve the efficiency of the licensing process for traditional as well as small modular reactors, while fully respecting safety and environmental concerns. In addition, we support the research and development of new, safe ways to minimize nuclear waste. We are working with our colleagues to create incentives for low-carbon power sources, including nuclear, that will complement the Energy and Natural Resource Committee’s work to incentivize renewable electricity.

Ensuring a future for coal. Our country has plentiful, accessible coal resources and infrastructure. It is a key component of our current fuel mix. As Senator Byrd pointed out in a recent op-ed, “No deliberate effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal for base load power generation in America.” He also acknowledged that, “to deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say ‘deal me out’… The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment.” We agree with both statements. However, due to current regulatory uncertainty, it is increasingly challenging to site new coal facilities, and utilities are switching to other fuel sources. Earlier this month, an electric utility in North Carolina announced its plans to take 11 existing coal facilities out of operation.  Coal’s future as part of the energy mix is inseparable from the passage of comprehensive climate change and energy legislation. We will commit significant resources to the rapid development and deployment of clean coal technology, and dedicated support for early deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.

Reviving American manufacturing by creating jobs. Manufacturing is the backbone of our nation’s economy, and we refuse to believe that the days of American leadership are behind us. Despite some initial success stories, such as North Dakota’s 30 percent growth in clean energy jobs in the last decade, the United States is falling behind. Successful climate legislation will not send existing jobs overseas. Rather, pricing carbon will drive innovation—creating new opportunities for those who develop clean energy technologies, as well as those who build, install, and maintain them. We plan to provide significant assistance to manufacturers to avoid carbon leakage and ensure the continued competitiveness of American-made goods. Our legislation will also provide financial incentives to both large and small manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their processes, which will mean even more new jobs. In addition to employing thousands in the building trades, our envisioned development of nuclear and wind power will also mean jobs and growth for our steel industry. It is time to regain our leadership and create the jobs of the future here in America.

Creating wealth for domestic agriculture and forestry. While emissions from agriculture will not be regulated, climate legislation will provide farmers with new opportunities to benefit from reducing their carbon emissions. Offset projects and other incentives will enable farmers to develop new income streams, as environmentally-friendly farming practices dramatically increase in value once a price is placed on carbon. According to USDA Secretary Vilsack, “the economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers can potentially outpace, perhaps significantly, the costs from climate legislation.” In addition, a new USDA study released last week shows that this can be accomplished without an appreciable rise in food prices. While we are still discussing the details of the offset program with our colleagues, we have reached agreement that we will include significant amounts of real, monitored and verified domestic and international offsets and other incentives in our system in order to contain costs and create opportunities for farmers, ranchers and forest owners to benefit from climate change legislation.

Regulating the carbon market. We will support vigilant carbon market oversight, real-time transparency, adequate settlement requirements to control risk in the market and strong quality controls to ensure maximum effectiveness and clarity. We will not stand for market abuse or manipulation, and we believe it is essential that any comprehensive emissions reduction strategy include provisions to ensure openness and accountability within the carbon market.

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Ultimately, climate change must be addressed through a strong international agreement that includes real, measurable, reportable, verifiable and enforceable actions by all nations. American leadership is essential, but action by the developing world is necessary to maximize the benefits of our effort. To this end, we acknowledge the role the United States can play to help provide long-term financing to assist developing countries adapt to climate change, generate energy cleanly and reduce emissions from deforestation. Additional private climate finance provided through international offsets has the added benefit of reducing costs for American consumers. As we work collectively with other countries to reduce global emissions, we agree with nine of our colleagues who wrote earlier this month: “enhanced technology cooperation will benefit the United States but must be coupled with strong protections for intellectual property rights.” Finally, we will include strong measures that are compatible with our obligations under the World Trade Organization to prevent our economic competitors from exploiting the American market if they shirk their responsibility to minimize carbon pollution.

Building consensus. We intend to continue to engage our Senate colleagues in the weeks ahead to develop sensible, effective climate change legislation that will create jobs, ensure our energy independence, restore America to a position of leadership in the clean energy economy and reduce pollution. We are inspired by the years of work that have already been done and we hope both to build on those efforts and to devise new, innovative ideas for resolving some of the issues that have long blocked the passage of a climate change bill in the Senate. Every perspective is valuable and we invite all of our colleagues, stakeholders and constituents to join us in this effort to find consensus. Together, we can and will pass climate change and energy independence legislation this Congress.

“This report shows that the 93 heads of state meeting in Copenhagen don’t have to make a choice between jumpstarting lagging economies and promoting a clean energy policy,”said  John Podesta, Director of the Center for American Progress.  “By transforming the global economy beyond dirty carbon energy, the Global Climate Network has shown that leaders can easily make the prudent choice to create millions of jobs in a new green and clean economy.”

The report – Low-Carbon Jobs in an Interconnected World – comes from the Global Climate Network (GCN), a unique alliance of influential think tanks coordinated by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) in London. As world leaders gather in Copenhagen for talks on cutting carbon emissions, there is a growing appreciation for the  potential benefits of action on climate change, which could lead to higher-skilled, more fully employed societies, could be lost if the debate continues to focus on the costs of action. The report argues that if governments take positive and immediate action to expand low-carbon energy markets, the benefits in terms of job creation and the increased welfare that employment brings to economies will be felt worldwide.

• China: Government wind, solar and hydro power targets could lead to the creation of 6.79 million jobs.
• United States: Out of a possible 1.9 million extra low-carbon jobs, making, new US and export markets in smart electricity meter technology alone could generate 416,000.
• India: Implementation of the Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change could create 10.5 million jobs in wind, solar and biofuels.

The study shows that more jobs can be created through a comprehensive shift towards a low-carbon economy as opposed to continuing to develop as we currently are. As well as creating jobs through cleaner energy, energy efficiency, forestation and a green life style, this approach would also reduce carbon emissions substantially.  The report emphasizes the following critical factors for creating these job opportunities:

• Sufficient financing to ensure that a transition to low-carbon energy takes place across the globe and that workers are in a position to benefit
• ‘Low-carbon industrial strategies’ – packages of government policy to stimulate low-carbon technology markets and create jobs to be introduced in all major economies to trigger a shift towards a low carbon economy
• Support for workers in high carbon sectors who may lose out in a new carbon economy so they can remain in work while they retrain or to be given assistance to help them prepare for work in a low-carbon economy.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Palin Denies Her Previous Stance On Climate Change (alan.com)
• Sarah Palin Pens False And Misleading Op-Ed On Copenhagen (alan.com)

Two weeks ago, FirstEnergy Generation purchased rights to develop a Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) plant on a 92-acre site in Ohio.  The CAES site, a geologically stable underground cavern, which had previously been used as a limestone mine, will be used to store compressed air for use in generating electricity.  At utility scale, it can be stored during hours of low energy demand and used for supplemental power for meeting peak load demands. Alternatively, CAES can be used to power tools, or even vehicles.

The air would be compressed during off-peak evening hours and released to drive power-generating turbines during peak daytime hours. CAES technologies are intended to help stabilize transmission networks and increase the value of renewable generation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Power Shift: Winners and Losers In the Energy Future, From the IEA (blogs.wsj.com)
• Commodity Sector Vs Power Sector (shabbir.in)

The United Nations’ University is hosting a film festival on “Indigenous Voices on Climate Change” this week in Copenhagen, Denmark to draw attention to various climate-change related issues during to the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties  to the UNFCCC (COP 15).

The film festival is organized around a collection of stories from indigenous communities across the world, highlighting local evidence of the real and immediate impacts of, and adaptation to, climate change. It aims to showcase the value of indigenous peoples’ perspectives of climate change, and the impacts climate change has on their lives, livelihoods, homes, cultures and ecosystems. By sharing these indigenous stories of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, the festival also seeks to share ideas on how ancestral wisdom is being incorporated into adaptation strategies and demonstrate different ways of adapting to climate change

Enbridge Inc. and First Solar, Inc. announced that they have entered into an agreement to expand the Sarnia Solar Project from 20 MW to 80 MW. Press at: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0566736.htm or http://tinyurl.com/yhc922n

Enbridge: http://www.enbridge.com/

First Solar: http://www.firstsolar.com/

Prism Solar Technologies and The Solar Energy Consortium Contract

Prism Solar Technologies and The Solar Energy Consortium reached an agreement on a $3.6-million federal grant secured by Congressman Maurice Hinchey’s office for Prism Solar. Prism Solar will receive $3,240,000 to manage a project to commercialize a solar bifacial ribbon cell technology that can be utilized with Prism Solar’s Holographic Planar Concentrator technology. Press at RenewableEnergyWorld: http://tinyurl.com/ybrdgr3

Prism Solar press: http://www.prismsolar.com/?p=press

http://www.prismsolar.com/

TSEC: http://thesolarec.org/

Invictus PV Rooftop System for Katoen Natie, Belgium

Invictus nv built a 40-MWp rooftop PV system for Katoen Natie, part of a series of projects realized by Invictus for a total of 68 MWp during 2009. Press at ENF.cn: http://news.enf.cn/en/news/news_12114.html

Invictus nv: http://www.invictus.be/

U.S. PPA Industry

The U.S. solar power purchase agreement market will grow to reach an estimated $8 billion in new PV solar power generation installations by 2013 according to Gartner, Inc. Press through PVSociety http://www.pvsociety.com/ at: http://www.pcb007.com/pages/zone.cgi?a=55087

Gartner: http://www.gartner.com/technology/home.jsp

Solar Industry 2009

SolarPlaza covers the Bank Sarasin report “Solar industry 2009: the first green shoots of recovery”, with growing interest in the Middle Eastern countries for solar power, at: http://www.solarplaza.com/news/solar-industry-set-for-global-recovery or http://tinyurl.com/ydfy3yx

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/newsdetails.asp?Sn=OGN&artid=171373 or http://tinyurl.com/yh9qgtw

EER Report on Southern Europe Solar PV Markets and Strategies

Emerging Energy Research has released “Southern Europe Solar PV Markets and Strategies: 2009-2020″. Information at: http://tinyurl.com/yzllloz

Solar Project Finance

SolarCity and U.S. Bancorp Community Development Corporation formed a partnership to finance small- and medium-scale solar projects for homeowners and businesses across the U.S. The two companies created a new US $50-million tax-equity based fund to finance projects under SolarCity’s SolarLease program. More on the program at RenewableEnergyWorld: http://tinyurl.com/ydurzmj

SolarCity: http://www.solarcity.com/

U.S. Bancorp Community Development Corporation: http://tinyurl.com/ykz3xh7

Solar for School District, California

The Lafayette School District in California unveiled 4 new solar electric systems developed and financed through 2 PPAs – one with Tioga Energy and one with Solar Monkey. Press at Solarbuzz: http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNAPR1792.htm

Tioga Energy: http://www.tiogaenergy.com/

Solar Monkey: http://www.solarmonkey.net/

Sustainable Energy Technology Inverters for Ontario Solar Market

Sustainable Energy Technologies Ltd. has been taking orders for its Sunergy line of inverters that will be manufactured in Ontario. The company expects to produce 40 MW of inverters in Q1 2010 with an expansion to 240 MW to follow. Press and video interview with Brent Harris about the Sunergy product and the company’s parallel stringing technology at RenewableEnergWorld: http://tinyurl.com/y885vgt

Sustainable Energy Technologies: http://www.sustainableenergy.com/

Pure energies MOU with SMA America

Pure energies announced an MOU with SMA America, LLC outlining the supply of 17 MW of solar inverters in 2010, with a target of 50 MW over the next 3 years. Press at RenewableEnergyWorld: http://tinyurl.com/yza755k

Pure energies: http://www.pure-energies.com/

SMA America: http://www.sma-america.com/en_US.html

BTU Solar Processing Equipment Orders

BTU International announced it received approximately $5.5 million in orders from Asia/Pacific customers for BTU solar processing equipment. Press at: http://tinyurl.com/yg9vn6c

BTU: http://www.btu.com/

GWS Technologies Proprietary Solar Panels

GWS Technologies, Inc. announced that it will begin accepting orders for their own proprietary solar panels beginning 1 January. Press at: http://tinyurl.com/ya3bmqp

GWS Technologies: http://www.greenwindsolar.com/

Alberta’s tar sands hold an estimated 173 billion barrels of recoverable oil – the second largest reserve on the planet after Saudi Arabia. The tar sands are scooped up by giant trucks, blasted with water, and upgraded to crude oil in chemical plants. There are concerns that this pollutes the local environment with metals, some of which are potentially carcinogenic or toxic.

The main body that monitors pollution in the area — the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP) — has typically found low to undetectable levels of PACs in river water, and that their flow into the main river delta has not gone up since 1997, which would indicate that they are not linked to mining. RAMP, set up by the Alberta government in 1997, is composed of representatives from the government, aboriginal communities, environmental groups and industry.

The authors says that RAMP suffers from “serious deficits”, such as an inconsistent sampling design, a lack of strong government leadership, and datasets that aren’t open to the public. In a response to Nature, RAMP said that it employs scientifically credible methodology, and has typically restricted access to its data in order to encourage membership — a practice that they are considering revising.

The study’s authors looked at water samples from the Athabasca river and its tributaries upstream of the tar sands area. They compared them to samples downstream of the tar sands but upstream of any mining, as well as downstream of mining activities. There was a small increase in PACs for both downstream samples in winter, and a large, 10-50-fold increase in PACs downstream of mining in summer when the river is not covered with ice and so more open to pollutants. Areas with more extensive mining development were linked to higher levels of PACs. The highest levels detected were about 0.7 micrograms per litre; 0.4 micrograms per litre can be toxic to fish embryos, the authors note.

The researchers also looked at snowpack samples in winter, and found elevated levels of PACs near the stacks of an oil-upgrading facility. The pollution could be detected up to 50 kilometres away. “When you look down the river, the snow looks grey,” says co-author Erin Kelly. “When you melt it you get an oily black residue on top of it.”

Peter Van Metre, a hydrologist with the US Geological Survey in Austin, Texas, says more work is probably needed to unpick the question of whether the stream samples are really higher in PACs than they would be if mining was absent. Regardless of this, he says, “the strength of paper is to show there are some significant local releases, and some questions about the impacts on the fish”. The concentrations found in the survey are relatively low in comparison to the Canadian aquatic guidelines, he notes, but still worth investigating.

“There’s been a lot of concern about inadequate monitoring for many years,” says Simon Dyer, with the environmental group the Pembina Institute in Edmonton. “There have been a number of critiques of RAMP to suggest it’s scientifically not adequate.” The Pembina institute withdrew from RAMP eight years ago because of concerns over a lack of government oversight and industry dominance, Dyer says. RAMP says it has responded to the criticisms brought up in peer review, and that less than 50% of its voting members are from industry.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Oil sands threaten our survival, Al Gore warns (thestar.com)
• Canada steps up oil sands push in United States (financialpost.com)
• Companies report progress in oil shale trials (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Environmentalists applaud Total’s choice for oil sands chief (financialpost.com)

Doug Barry, a representative of the United States Commercial Service, recently interviewded Mitch Jackson, FedEx’s Senior Director of Environmental Affairs and Sustainability for the United States Commercial Service, about a range of environmental issues.

MR. BARRY: How does one get to be a senior director of environmental affairs and sustainability? What sort of background – and does it ever put you in conflict with senior management?

MR. JACKSON: That’s actually, that’s a great question. Well, I came out of the properties group within FedEx – engineering background. And I think maybe in some ways that that actually helps a little bit because it provides a systemic way of thinking. You have to have more of a holistic approach to this. I think I’m very lucky at FedEx because our chairman understands the importance of trade, the intersection between trade and sustainability and prosperity. And so in that respect, I think I’m lucky. I think the issue for us is one of – that we need to be thinking long term, we need to be thinking holistically and we just really need to be planning for the future.

MR. BARRY: Have you had to take unpopular positions and insist on certain things ever that put the environment before bottom line?

MR. JACKSON: Well, I think absolutely it’s important when you’re talking about regulatory issues and issues of compliance, absolutely – I mean, those are paramount. Those take precedence with respect to what’s underway. Usually those are not the difficult things, however. The difficult issues and the challenging issues are those that – those issues where you’re trying to find balance between environmental sustainability, economic viability and social good. And so the compliance piece is usually very easy. It’s doing the best in the discretionary space that sometimes gets to be –challenging sometimes.

MR. BARRY: Can you give us an example of what it’s like to be in that discretionary space and the challenge that you confronted?

MR. JACKSON: Sure. A few years ago, we entered into a project with e Environmental Defense Fund. And what we were looking for is transformation of transportation. And the idea for this was we know what type of vehicles work. We were looking for a different way to innovate. And so we entered into the project with the Environmental Defense Fund, and we had developed for us by Eaton Corporation, hybrid electrics trucks. The irony of this is that the vehicles have worked very, very well. We’re almost at 5 million miles of revenue service. The issue is now is one of commercialization; it’s to bridge the gap between development and commercialization. And I think we’re well on our way. We have a hundred fleets that are using commercial hybrid electric vehicles in 37 different truck applications. I think that’s a testament to what can be accomplished through collaboration and decisions that involve discretionary issues.

MR. BARRY: And what’s the next step with the commercialization of those vehicles?

MR. JACKSON: I think the next step is to raise the volumes such that the price comes down. We have work across the different continents and with different truck sizes that operate in those different markets.

MR. BARRY: Some developing countries have charged that transnational corporations have a double standard when it comes to protecting the environment. Yes, in their own markets, they’re happy to abide by the regulations and support them. But in the developing countries, they sometimes misbehave by sending their garbage and engaging in various polluting activities. What is Federal Express’ approach to green in differing markets?

MR. JACKSON: It’s an interesting question. I mean, we’re a global company, and so we feel that the way we operate within the U.S. is the way that we should operate around the world. So we have to be a good corporate citizen in those communities as well. If you think about it, what we do is carpooling for packages. You have to be just as responsible because we’re a global brand, and it has that global presence. And you need to be operating consistently.

MR. BARRY: Have you found yourself in some of these developing countries actually leading the effort rather than having to wait for government to catch up and impose various regulations and restrictions?

MR. JACKSON: I think that’s the fun of it in some cases, is to look for those areas to do these efforts that are really beyond regulation. But understand, there are business reasons for doing it as well. I mean, because if we can get people into mass transit, that helps us with our safety initiatives on pedestrian safety. It helps with respect to congestion. It allows us to be more efficient in picking up and delivering the goods that we carry for our customers. So there are – there are vested reasons to undertake this as well.

MR. BARRY: There have been the FedEx ads in the past where trucks arrive next to what looked like an outdoor market in Asia. And I’m sure, you know, there are issues with getting chicken feathers in your exhaust systems and so forth. What are some of those interesting cases?

MR. JACKSON: We use differing types of equipment to deliver in – around the world. I mean, all of the way from big pickup and delivery trucks that we have here within the United States down to bicycles with baskets on them in some cases, or electric little scooters. One of the interesting things is just the different type of vehicles that we have around the world, and the ingenuity of those operations.

MR. BARRY: In places like Europe that is now contemplating a carbon tax on airlines, that a lot of people are becoming concerned about environmental damage caused by these big jet engines. What is your approach to that?

MR. JACKSON: Right now it’s about 3 percent of the global carbon footprint as far as the inventory of emissions. Interestingly enough, it’s the only sector of transportation where emissions have actually been getting better. Now, as aviation grows, especially international aviation grows, those emissions will go up. So it’s important for the industry, for the carriers and for the industry at large to be dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. For FedEx, what we did last year is we established a global greenhouse gas reduction or carbon dioxide reduction goal, and we said that we were going to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent per available ton mile by 2020. So we’re at about 9 percent towards that target from a 2005 baseline. Our new Boeing 777 freighters will let us fly from Guangzhou, China, our Eastern hub, all the way to mid-America in Memphis without a stop, and carry a hundred tons of freight in the process. So as we make these improvements in efficiency that reduces greenhouse gases as well.

MR. BARRY: What’s next in new green technologies?

MR. JACKSON: Improvements in battery technology and battery-powered vehicles. And I think what you’re seeing in the developing world is distributed energy concepts being implemented where towns and villages are actually being powered themselves by renewable energy.

MR. BARRY: And is FedEx trying to be a thought leader in that area too, in its relations with governments and –

MR. JACKSON: Yeah, I think one of the areas that’s very important to us is the issue of trade and how trade is – we know that as the economies around the world increase, natural resources will be consumed more than they would have been before, but the fact of it is, is that innovation gives us the ability to help – to do two things: It helps us to reduce our environmental footprints, if you will, but also to raise those standards of living. And so we see the intersection between the two, and the challenge is to make sure that both are coming up together. What we think, however, though, a certainty is that if there is no economic development, there’s very likely no environmental stewardship because the people of those countries and those towns are simply trying to survive. And the issue is they will try to prosper; we just need to make sure that they have the tools and the ability to do so in the most environmentally responsible manner.

MR. BARRY: There seems to be a need to go far beyond just recycling waste paper and empty bottles and plastics and so forth, and to cover a huge range of human and business activity all over the world.

MR. JACKSON: Well, it’s consistent with what we do. I mean, if you think about – we help with trade, and what we really do is we help to connect the world. With respect to sustainability, what we’re really doing is connecting the world responsibly and resourcefully. But that’s a team sport. That takes everybody working together on this. And so that’s how we look at it and that’s what we’re trying to do.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How To Travel Green (howcast.com)
• Berkeley Lab experts assist in the greening of China (scienceblog.com)