The Green Journey Starts at Home ™

This past week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a report linking climate change to some of the extreme weather events of 2011, like the devastating drought in Texas and record high temperatures in Britain.

None of this bodes well for the future, but there is a glimmer of hope. It turns out that U.S. carbon emissions are down nearly 8 percent since 2006.

Much of that has to do with the weak economy — people are consuming less electricity. But another part could be related to the decline of coal and the rise of cleaner-burning natural gas. This boom in natural gas has been killing the Appalachian coal industry, but it also has environmental impacts both good and bad.

Extreme Weather

Philip Mote is the director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University and one of the authors of the NOAA report. He and a team looked at last year’s drought in Texas and compared what happened there with climate models going back five decades.

They wanted to figure out the odds that the drought was indeed related to climate change, and he tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz that it was an extreme event that was beyond anything that had happened before, but is likely to happen again.

“Certain types of extreme weather events, it’s pretty clear, are increasing and will increase as the climate changes,” Mote says. Extreme heat events being one, he says, as well as extreme rainfall. There have been some extreme cold events, however, but he says they shouldn’t be mistaken for evidence against global warming.

“One incorrect conclusion is that global warming is not happening,” he says. “Another incorrect conclusion is that global warming is making our weather more extreme in every respect. The correct conclusion is probably that that cold event happened despite global warming.”

Mote’s hope is that this report gives us a better understanding of what’s happening in the world. In this case, he says, we’re talking about events that are part of a larger portrait of how we’re changing the climate.

“Even without climate change, in some respects, the ever-growing human race is very unprepared for extreme events,” he says. “But we should certainly be prepared for those events we think of as unlikely and they’re actually getting more likely.”

Worth The Risk

The question now is whether human behavior can halt the pace of climate change. President Obama has set a goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by the end of this decade.

Another study suggests that goal might actually be feasible. Not because of tough new regulations or even legislation, but because of the increasing use of natural gas to generate electricity.

Gas is one of the cheapest sources of electricity generation, now half the price of coal. Much of this a recent development, the result of advances in hydraulic fracturing or fracking, the controversial process by which gas is extracted from deep under rock formations. Fracking now produces a third of all U.S. natural gas.

Lawrence Cathles, a professor at Cornell University who wrote that study, took a close look at natural gas usage and he found that replacing coal with natural gas would cut about 40 percent of carbon emissions linked to global warming.

“When you burn natural gas it’s a cleaner burning fuel,” Cathles tells Raz. “But the more significant thing … natural gas can generate electricity with almost twice the efficiency in terms of conversion of energy content of fuel.”

Natural gas is made up largely of methane, and some of it can leak as the gas is extracted and transported. Cathles says leakage of gas from well site to customer through pipes and compressors is about 1.5 percent of total production of gas.

“So we are losing gas, but it’s not significant from a climate point of view,” he says.

Even with that 1.5 percent or even 2 percent leakage — which Cathles does think is too much — he says if natural gas replaces coal, greenhouse gas emissions would decrease by up to 40 percent.

As far as the danger to water supplies, which critics cite as one of the issues with fracking, Cathles disagrees.

“You can’t smell, you can’t taste [methane]; you really don’t know it’s there [and] it’s not harmful to you,” Cathles says. Methane does pose an explosion danger in higher concentrations, however.

The risk of methane escape, Cathles says, is in tapping out a shallow gas pocket, something that would happen even if you drilled a water well. He says that risk is worth it.

“[If] we can get 40 percent of the distance we need to by accepting new availability of natural gas … I think it makes just good sense to do it,” he says.

Slowing Climate Change

Even with the reduction in U.S. carbon emissions in recent years, is it enough to slow down climate change? David Victor, a fossil fuel expert at the University of California, San Diego, says the jury is still out.

“While there’s been a big reduction in U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide because of this shift to natural gas,” Victor says, “it hasn’t led to the kind of reductions you need to stop global warming, which is a 50 percent to 80 percent reduction.”

Victor agrees that the gas revolution is not all roses, and that the U.S. needs to be vigilant about the environmental side affects, including small earthquakes from wells and the potential dangers to local water supplies.

“If the best practices aren’t used on the well then some [waste]water can leak into ground water and be spilled on the surface and so on,” he says. “There are air pollution concerns associated with fracking as well, so we need to find ways to address those.”

Continued monitoring of natural gas production methods is important, Victor says, in order to make sure that we aren’t accidentally making the problem worse by shifting to fracking and natural gas. At its best, he says, natural gas is a bridge to a future where we have lower emissions.

“It’s better to have a bridge than nothing,” he says.

For now, natural gas is on a rapid ascent. Last month, for the first time in U.S history, gas generated as much electricity as coal, now one-third of all our power. [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]

The clean tech race is on. While the Chinese are investing heavily in clean technologies and in the process creating jobs….what are we doing? We are overturning environmental initiatives. We have groups such as the Tea Party who are well financed by the oil companies trying to overturn environmental regulations in states like California. They claim it is about protecting jobs, when in fact it is about protecting oil company profits. And meanwhile the Chinese have clearly defined strategic goals to make clean tech a pillar of their society.

The arguments that environmental protection hurts job creation reminds me of India after the British were kicked out. India closed their borders from foreign trade and taxed heavily any imports. This was about protecting jobs and foreign intervention. Many of the jobs within India were in protected industries. Over the years India fell increasingly behind the rest of the world. Inefficiency and poor quality became the norm.

The parallel here is that China is progressing ambitiously towards a Green future. And what are we doing? We have groups that are protecting the interests of the oil companies and in so doing, we’ll stand the risk of increasingly falling behind in clean technologies.

See Thomas Friedman in the NYTimes

The future of fossil fuels look problematic. People keep discussing proven reserves and whether peak oil already has arrived or not. What is most important is the fact that – no matter how much additional oil we can still retrieve – future barrels will be much more difficult to extract relative to the past.

This is expected to result in a rapid increase in oil prices from a decline in the availability of cheap and easily accessible oil sources. Our prices today are artificially constrained by the global recession. When the recession passes, prices of oil can be expected to soar.

Loyd’s of London, the world’s leading insurance market, recently published a report stating that businesses are underestimating the catastrophic consequences of declining oil.

Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, wrote that “It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive.” He went on to quote King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia commenting on a new oil find: “Leave it in the ground…our children need it.”

Loyd’s of London warned of “catastrophic consequences” for businesses that fail to prepare for a world of increasing oil scarcity and a lower carbon economy.

The Guardian paper wrote “The Lloyd’s insurance market and the highly regarded Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, says Britain needs to be ready for “peak oil” and disrupted energy supplies at a time of soaring fuel demand in China and India, constraints on production caused by the BP oil spill and political moves to cut CO2 to halt global warming.”

A similar warning was written in an earlier piece by the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption

What does Minneapolis have in common with Portland OR, Boulder CO, Austin TX, Madison WI, San Francisco CA, Burlington VT?

Minneapolis is considered to be one of the top 10 Green cities in the nation.

CBS News reported last month that one of its news crews was threatened with arrest for trying to film a public beach where oil had washed ashore.  This is not an isolated incident.  There are numerous cases being reported in the Gulf where the press is being denied access to film the oil damaged beaches and oil slick.

There is a no-fly zone over the slick and pilots must petition the FAA for approval to fly over the area.  They are being consistently denied access when they state that there are reporters on the aircraft.  Even Senator Nelson, who had planned to take a Coast Guard Vessel out to the site with reporters, was told hours before the departure that the press would not be allowed.

Scientist are equally frustrated by the lack of access that they have to the to the area.

This afternoon, the House passed the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 (H.R. 5019) with a vote of 246 to 161!  The bill passed with bi-partisan support – 12 Republicans voted in favor.

Let’s see how our Minnesota representatives voted:

• Bachmann, Michele, Minnesota, 6th – Nay
  She likes the ‘Drill Baby Drill’ approach and evidently does not have much use for conservation.  In the aftermath of the BP spill you would think that she would see that there needs to be smart alternatives, to drilling our way out of our energy challenges.
• Ellison, Keith, Minnesota, 5th – Yea
  Smart man!  He earned your support.
• Kline, John, Minnesota, 2nd – Nay
  Kline writes on his site that “Any legislation designed to revive and renew our economy should help American families and small businesses by preserving and creating more jobs in America. Americans should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money – to save, spend or invest. Legislation based on those principles would put America on a direct road to economic recovery.”

  If Kline really believes in his words, that we need to create jobs and help people save money, there is is no good reason from him to vote Nay.  Remember this folks when he is up for reelection.

• McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th – No vote
• Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th – Yea
  Another smart individual who deserves your support.
• Paulsen, Erik, Minnesota, 3rd – Nay
  What is Erik thinking??
• Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th – Yea
  Thanks Collin.
• Walz, Timothy J., Minnesota, 1st – Yea
  Tim understands energy conservation and deserves your support.

This is a major milestone for Home Star, but work still remains. First, the Senate must follow up and pass their version of the Home Star bill. Additionally, today’s vote was an authorization, so it must be matched with an appropriation bill. An appropriation bill will actually allocate the $6 billion dollars to the program.

New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg (D) and Illinois House Representative Bobby Rush (D) have been working on legislation to overhaul the nation’s original Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)  In 2009 a report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) named the original TSCA act a “high risk” area of government, in need of reform.

The GAO found that the original act fails to adequately monitor the toxic chemicals actually in use in this country, requiring testing on only about 200 out of 82,000 chemicals entering the market since 1976. Of these 82,000 chemicals only  5 have been restricted.  The GAO also found that the original act places significant burdens on those most likely to be affected by these chemicals, requiring them to research products for themselves to determine risks.

The new law would correct these flaws and would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals.

Jeffrey Hollender, co-founder of Seventh Generation , the leading household healthy cleaning products company says: “We support updating TSCA because it is vital for protecting the health of people and the planet.”  Jeffrey Hollander was interviewed  on the Green is Good radio show.  His interview can be found here.

HOME STAR legislation is scheduled to be voted on by the full U.S. House of Representatives this coming Thursday, May 6.

This initiative establishes a $6 billion rebate program to encourage immediate investment in energy-efficient appliances, building mechanical systems and insulation, and whole-home energy efficiency retrofits. HOME STAR will rapidly create jobs in both construction and manufacturing, while saving families money on their energy bills. It will build on current state programs and existing industry capacity for performing both retrofits and quality assurance, using federal standards and incentives as a common platform to lower program costs and increase consumer awareness.

Google, Ebay, Staples, COX Enterprise, Federal Express, Bank of America, Coca Cola and many other corporations have been testing a new device that can generate power on the spot, without being connected to the electric grid. Will we have one in every home someday? Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes, reports.

Check out:

The Bloom Box

In a markup session on Thursday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved the bipartisan Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 (H.R. 5019) by a vote of 30 to 17. “Today’s legislation presents an opportunity for us all to work together,” chairman Henry A. Waxman said in a statement to the committee. “I urge all members to seize that opportunity.”