Proposition 1A is a $10 billion bond measure for high-speed rail in California. The biggest single infrastructure project ever built in the US, the 800 mile high-speed rail line would link northern and southern California.

Well, another area of cooperation between the Greenhouse Giants (Ho,ho,ho, Andy Revkin) would seem to be rail transport. Green Car Congress informs that General Electric and China’s Ministry of Railways has signed a strategic MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) to advance opportunities for development of HSR (High-Speed Rail) in the US. “This collaboration will allow GE Transportation to be the first US locomotive manufacturer to more effectively compete for high-speed rail projects against global competitors.”

By global competition with General Electric for HSR contracts in U.S., one presumes not only Japan and the European Union, already famous for their HSR, but also Canada. Canada was home to Bombadier, and, more impotantly, active participation by Canadian railway interests would be necessary to connect the Siberia-Alaska tunnel to the main U.S. West Coast route, plus Canada has the existing main route East. And, one also presumes that China is other than a global competitor, even though China is developing high-speed rail that will run at 380 kph (236 mph) along parts of the 1,318-km (819-mile) run* between Beijing and Shanghai. And, China is growing as a global competitor in renewable energy and passenger cars.

*Note: A general rule of thumb: trains beat planes in terms of speed for inter-city routes when the distance is less than 1500 km.

While GE currently is the world leader in locomotive diesel-electric and electronic control systems technology, China currently is a leader in high-speed rail technology for speeds of 220 miles per hour. Working together, both parties could develop the best solutions faster to serve America’s high-speed rail needs for many years to come.

—Tim Schweikert, President of GE Transportation China

About 90 per cent of people that travel between Paris and London go by Eurostar, the high-speed rail between the two cities.

More than $13 billion will be spent over the next five years to support higher- and high-speed rail infrastructure development in the United States. Over the next three years, China will invest about $300 billion into its railways infrastructure, expanding its network by more than 20,000 kilometers (12,427 miles), including 13,000 kilometers (8,077 miles) of track designed for high-speed trains capable of traveling up to 220 miles per hour.

GE currently is working with China’s largest diesel locomotive manufacturing company, CSR Qishuyan Locomotive Co., Ltd., to provide China’s Ministry of Railways with the most technologically advanced, fuel-efficient and low-emissions diesel-electric, heavy-haul locomotive available to date. More than 100 of these locomotives already have been placed in revenue service by the MOR.

See also “Chinese Railways enter a new, High-speed era (PDF)”

Related articles by Zemanta

• High-speed rail advocates say $8B is just a start (sfgate.com)
• High-Speed Rail (technologyreview.com)

• Prospects for High Speed Rail in California
• Light Rail and High-Speed Rail Interconnects
• Environmental friendly Super Express Train
• The Buenos Aires-Rosario-Cordoba Line
• Alta Velocidad Española

No tin foil hat for Amory Lovins, Fiberforge Chairman Emeritus, when he takes his show on the road, uh-uh, strictly composite, baby.

GCC informs that the funding will support energy efficiency technologies in 2 areas:

The Center will investigate novel manufacturing processes and alternative feedstocks in order to lower the cost of carbon fiber from the current $10-$20 per pound to under $5 per pound.

ORNL also will receive $20.2 million to develop an Integrated Net-Zero Energy Buildings Research Laboratory that includes a commercial building field research platform.

• Carbon-Fiber Composites from Renewable Resources
• Oak Ridge and the Hybrid Consortium plan to work together
• Sustainable Aluminum and More Efficient Transportation
• Elephant Grass as Biofuel Feedstock
• Federal Grant for Utility Scale Solar Thermal

O.K.? So on with news of a “Very exciting day here in Beijing. There’s enormous interest in both governments working together to fight climate change. The package announced today is far-reaching and can make a real difference in cutting emissions.”

In Beijing a comprehensive plan for U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy and climate change has been announced by President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao.

Climate Progress relays word of the joint U.S. and China announcement of a “positive, cooperative and comprehensive” plan for collaboration on clean energy and climate change.

Climate Progress also tries a positive spin on “shale gas, which appears to exist in abundance in China and could allow re-powering of existing Chinese coal plants and more rapid medium-term reductions than people have thought possible.”

CP commentator Canada Guy reflects my sentiments: “This doesn’t look very encouraging. Lots of measuring and planning, and lots of focus on coal and shale. There is no clean coal, it is a fairy tale. Where are the actual *cuts* in emissions?”

Well, no cuts in emissions promised from the 2 biggest emitters, rather some efforts at cooperation in the following areas: GHG monitoring, joint research, China has EVs to sell US, Energy Efficiency*, Renewable Energy*, further perpetuating the Clean Coal lie, drilling for shale gas, more Nuclear Power, public-private partnerships*.

* Note: Energy.gov provides fact sheets. Still it might be wise to have your decoder rings handy.

From information about 200 of the World’s Dirtiest Power Plants, one can see why the United States and China are the two largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world; 60% of the dirtiest coal-fired electric power plants are in the US & East Asia.

1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. A memorandum of cooperation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and China’s National Development and Reform Commission sets out avenues for collaboration on capacity building in climate change, with an initial focus on helping China to develop a robust, transparent and accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

2. Joint Clean Energy Research Center. Originally announced this July, more details were provided on the joint center that will “facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country.” Financial support from public and private sources of at least $150 million over five years, split evenly between the two countries, will be provided. The Center’s research will initially focus on building energy efficiency, clean coal including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. (Factsheet)

3. Electric Vehicles. Those initiative will “include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects.” (Factsheet)

4. Energy Efficiency. Building on the Ten Year Framework on Energy and Environment Cooperation, government officials of both countries will “work together and with the private sector to develop energy efficient building codes and rating systems, benchmark industrial energy efficiency, train building inspectors and energy efficiency auditors for industrial facilities, harmonize test procedures and performance metrics for energy efficient consumer products, [and] exchange best practices in energy efficient labeling systems.” (Factsheet)

5. Renewable Energy. The two countries will develop roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment in both countries. The Partnership will also provide technical and analytical resources to states and regions in both countries to support renewable energy deployment and will facilitate state-to-state and region-to-region partnerships to share experience and best practices. (Factsheet)

6. 21st Century Coal. The two countries will “launch a program of technical cooperation to bring teams of U.S. and Chinese scientists and engineers together in developing clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies.” The Presidents also welcomed a package of announcements on public-private partnerships in advanced coal technologies. (Factsheet)

7. Shale Gas. Under a new Shale Gas Initiative, the U.S. and China will “use experience gained in the United States to assess China’s shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops.” (Factsheet)

8. Nuclear. The two countries reaffirmed the goals of the recently-concluded Third Executive Committee Meeting of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to promote the peaceful use of civilian nuclear energy, and “ agreed to consult with one another in order to explore such approaches—including assurance of fuel supply and cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel management so that countries can access peaceful nuclear power while minimizing the risks of proliferation.”

9. Public-private partnerships on clean energy. A new U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program (ECP) will “leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations.” The ECP, consisting of at least 22 founding member companies, will work on collaborative projects in renewable energy, smart grid, clean transportation, green building, clean coal, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency.

Politics As Usual plus Business As Usual And Above All Else equals Destruction of Life on the Planet as We know It

In a joint statement, President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed on a common approach to achieve a successful outcome in international climate negotiations (CP emphasis is in bold):

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support.

So, for any AG scorekeepers out there in cyberspace, we have 3 issues that rate above ground (#1, #2, & #3) , 3 that require a code book (#4, #5, & #9), and 3 that definitely are below ground (#6, #7, & #8).

#1 GHG Inventory

Good.

#2 Joint Research

Sounds good. Who is going to argue with more study, eh?

#3 Electric Vehicles

Good, as far as it goes. I have yet to winter mine because it has been warm during the day in Upstate New York.

#4 Energy Efficiency

Look, Amory, Lip Service

#5 Renewable Energy

Does that mean China wants to sell us solar panels to power our Chinese made EVs?

#6 21st Century Schizoid Plan More Coal

Man, you sure got some dirty air here in Beijing.

#7 Shale Gas

(Editor’s note: Did you read the Full Disclosure? Fine.)
You’re in the Pickens Army now
You’re not behind a plow
You t’ain’t the one getting rich, biatch
Might as well move to Love Canal.

#8 Mo’ Nuklar

Uranium future(s), anyone?

#9 BAUAAAE

Nuff said.

No longer can we claim ignorance. Denial equates to death on a planetary scale.

O.K., enough snarkiness, where is the compassion? Greenwashers need to make a living, too, what with the cost of Washington Theater these days and trying to save for the kid’s college, it has to be exceptionally tough when the boss says, “Have I got a great plan or what?” So, the last word for now on the shale gas proposal will go to JR.

China has massive energy needs. CSP and wind with gas (plus the nuclear they are building) can cover a lot of new generation, but we need to replace existing plants to. So shale gas instead of coal is NOT business as usual. It can re-power existing coal plants — and in China we’ll need to replace existing coal plants with something with far lower emissions. Also, one can do CCS with gas, and probably to much greater effect. A gas plant with 50% CCS equals a coal plant with 80% CCS. China is will need to slash emissions at all those coal plants it built in the last two decades. Gas could play a key role for China.

Related articles by Zemanta

• More important than Copenhagen? U.S.-China deal on energy and climate (scientificamerican.com)

• Ah, Chernobyl Zombie Season in Washington
• Cut the Coal Subsidies
• More Power Plants
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
• The Greening of Grey-jing

Repost from Green Car Congress with a graph, an illustration, links and captions added.

Despite the economic effects of the global financial crisis (GFC), carbon dioxide emissions from human activities rose 2% in 2008 to an all-time high of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, according to a new paper published by an international team of 31 scientists in Nature Geoscience.

The authors, under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project, reported a 29% increase in global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 (the latest year for which figures are available), and by 41% between 2008 and 1990, the reference year of the Kyoto Protocol. The use of coal as a fuel has now surpassed oil and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries, with a quarter of their growth in emissions accounted for by increased trade with the West.

Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities rose 2% in 2008 to an all-time high of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year

Using a variety of data including direct observations, computer-generated models, and estimates from countries’ energy statistics, the team created a global CO₂ budget—the amount of CO₂ produced and consumed—from 1959 to 2008. Other main findings of the study include:

• CO₂ emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased at an average annual rate of 3.4% between 2000 and 2008, compared with 1% per year in the 1990s.

• Emissions from land use change have remained almost constant since 2000, but now account for a significantly smaller proportion of total anthropogenic CO₂ emissions (20% in 2000 to 12% in 2008).

• The fraction of total CO₂ emissions remaining in the atmosphere has likely increased from 40 to 45% since 1959; models suggests this is due to the response of the natural CO₂ sinks to climate change and variability.

• Emissions from coal are now the dominant fossil fuel emission source, surpassing 40 years of oil emission prevalence.

• The global financial crisis had a small but discernible impact on emissions growth in 2008—with the 2% increase compared with an average 3.6% over the previous seven years. On the basis of projected changes in GDP, emissions for 2009 are expected to fall to their 2007 levels, before increasing again in 2010.

• Emissions from emerging economies such as China and India have more than doubled since 1990 and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries. A quarter of the growth in CO2 emissions in developing countries can be accounted for by an increase in international trade of goods and services.

According to the GCP’s findings, atmospheric CO₂ growth was about four billion metric tonnes of carbon in 2008 and global atmospheric CO₂ concentrations reached 385 parts per million—38% above pre-industrial levels.

According to co-author and GCP Executive Director, CSIRO’s Dr. Pep Canadell, the findings indicate that natural carbon sinks, which play an important role in buffering the impact of rising emissions from human activity, have not been able to keep pace with rising CO₂ levels.

There are two major natural carbon sinks: the oceans and the land “biosphere”. They are equivalent in size, each absorbing a quarter of all CO2 emissions. With the oceans unable to take up as much CO2 as in the past 200 years, and a diminished ability to take up CO2 by the biosphere, the atmosphere inevitably must take up more, which will accelerate global heating and climate change that is becoming catastrophic.

On average only 45 per cent of each year’s emissions remain in the atmosphere. The remaining 55 per cent is absorbed by land and ocean sinks. However, CO₂ sinks have not kept pace with rapidly increasing emissions, as the fraction of emissions remaining in the atmosphere has increased over the past 50 years. This is of concern as it indicates the vulnerability of the sinks to increasing emissions and climate change, making natural sinks less efficient ‘cleaners’ of human carbon pollution.

—Dr Canadell

AG Related Posts

• Cut the Coal Subsidies
• Arctic Tipping Point Arriving Ahead of Schedule
• Drawing a Line in the Coal Dust
• Temperature vs. CO2
• The Syllogism of Doom

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fossil fuel CO2 emissions up by 29 percent since 2000 (scienceblog.com)

• Our New National Spirit Demands Sacrifice
• How to get off Coal
• No Coal is Clean Coal
• Carbon Tracker
• A Solar Bill of Rights

keith refers to COP15, the Copenhagen Climate Summit, as vapourware.

Asia-Pacific leaders on Sunday vowed to work for an “ambitious outcome” at next month’s Copenhagen climate talks but gave no target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“We… reaffirm our commitment to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen,” they said in a declaration at the end of a two-day Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

The 21-member grouping declared climate change “one of the biggest global challenges” but dropped a target to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a goal outlined in an earlier draft of the joint statement.

Besides the recommendation to delay COP15, the Copenhagen Climate Summit, another big surprise (< – sarcasm on the Internet, my, how novel!) in the news: US senators appear “to be betting on nuclear energy as the key to finally passing sweeping domestic climate change legislation.” Of course, it only looks to be a bet; “the fix is in.”

“If nuclear power is unneeded, uncompetitive, or ineffective in climate protection, let alone all three, then we need hardly debate whether its safety and waste issues are resolved.”

Yes, of course, it’s the best they can do. What were you expecting?

AG Related Posts

• But, that is a nuclear delusion, Senator
• Ah, that bright green glow radiating from Senate chambers can mean only one thing
• Wholly, Green Glowing Chernobyl Zombies, Chooster
• Corn, Coal or Chernobyl

Related articles by Zemanta

• World Leaders Agree To Delay Binding Climate Deal Until After Copenhagen (huffingtonpost.com)

• But, that is a nuclear delusion, Senator
• I’ll try to contain my excitement
• That was a close one, Arlen
• Thirsty for Climate Justice?
• Horsefeathers

HuffPo contributor Richard Greene wants to hear some words that we can believe in, to wit:

The “CLEAN AMERICA Bill” IS:

• Our Children’s Energy
• Our Grandchildren’s Energy
• Sustainability
• Corporate Accountability
• Slowly changing the way we use energy and do business
• Punishing polluters
• Rewarding good (stewardship)
• “Honesty” and “Honest Accounting”
• “The REAL Cost” of goods and services
• The Beginning of the END to “Corporate Socialism” (where the public is forced to pay for the damage that corporations create and foist unto the public)
• The Beginning of A New Era in Energy and Business

When I read that U.S. President Barack Obama said he would travel to Copenhagen… if a climate summit is on the verge of a framework deal …and his presence there will make a difference in clinching it…. I thought, “Please, don’t, don’t say such things, and don’t go. We have so little credibility as it is.”

Climate Progress commentator Christopher, who already was pissed off because “Copenhagen was a known goal for years, and we missed it,” used all upper case in his response to the President’s announcement that he would go to Copenhagen if he can seal a deal: “WE ARE NOT LEADERS ON THIS.”

I concur. the President’s appearance at the United Nations seemingly was a test of rhetoric in lieu of substantive action. He said, “We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.” And, yet, the United States is a principle source of GHG emissions and we ecocidally refuse to place limits on anthropogenic emissions contributing to catastrophic degradation of the Earth’s atmosphere. Among the global community, rather than setting a good example, we are the prime bad example. To act otherwise is to ridicule the efforts toward, and the outcry that will come from, the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen on December 7.

Thus, while Richard Greene wants words that he can believe in. I am more concerned with recent actions (and inaction) by the Obama administration. With words, it sometimes is difficult to hear them over the mountain tops being blown up, or heavy excavators gouging strips from public lands.

More Treehugger Posts about Obama Climate Change Rhetoric

• Obama Cites Michael Pollan’s Sun-Food Agenda
• Obama to Give First Big Climate Change Speech
• Obama’s UN Climate Speech Lacked Details to Lead World Forward: Bill McKibben
• Obama Says Climate Change Is Real, Will Hire Gore

Related articles by Zemanta

• Analysis: What hope for Copenhagen now? (guardian.co.uk)

• Ah, Chernobyl Zombie Season in Washington
• CoC decries PR Hoaxes
• The Cap and Trade Gambit
• The Hansen Test
• The People Deserve to Know

The Oil Drum is a weblog about energy and our future and “Peak Oil” is a favorite topic.

The Guardian reports that 2 anonymous whistleblowers at IEA (International Energy Agency) say the figures were deliberately massaged, at least in part, to appease the United States.

The first whistleblower — who is still at the IEA and wished to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal — says that while the IEA has maintained that world oil production can be increased to 105 million barrels per day, from the current 83 million barrels, “Many inside the organization believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible.”

The second whistleblower, who is no longer with the IEA, said that it was agency policy to not “anger the Americans” and added that we are already past peak oil and that “the situation is really bad.”

If the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) were to have made official statements about declining world oil production, then such an opinion would have added weight to the arguments for oil conservation and rapid development of alternative renewable energy sources. Emperor Fossil would not have been pleased.

Other Treehugger Posts on the Topic of Peak Oil

• Five Hundred Oil-Industry Geologists Vote on Peak Oil
• If Peak Oil is Now or in 2030, We’re Still Woefully Unprepared
• Matt Simmons: Peak Oil Will Dwarf Financial Crisis Soon

• The Truth about Oil and Iraq
• How to get off Coal
• Sustainable Environment Emergency Management Administration
• Australians Encouraged to don Their Thinking Hats
• Renewable Energy for Electric Propulsion?

Photo: Steve Fareham

Burbo Bank Windpark is an example of off-shore wind power. According to Wikipedia, “wind power is growing at the rate of 30 percent annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 121,000 megawatts (MW) in 2008, and is widely used in European countries and the United States.” So far, utilization of off-shore wind power has been more common in Europe.

Wind energy provided more than half of Spain’s total electricity needs for several hours over the weekend as the country set a new national record for wind-generated power.

With high winds gusting across much of the country, Spain’s huge network of wind farms jointly poured the equivalent of 11 nuclear power stations’ worth of electricity into the national grid.

At one stage on Sunday morning, the country’s wind farms were able to cover 53% of total electricity demand – a new record in a country that boasts the world’s third largest array of wind turbines, after the United States and Germany.

For more than five hours on Sunday morning output from wind power was providing more than half of the electricity being used. At their peak, wind farms were generating 11.5 gigawatts, or two-thirds of their theoretical maximum capacity of almost 18GW.

The new record, which beat a 44 % level set earlier last week, came as strong winds battered the Iberian peninsula.

The massive output of wind turbines meant the Spanish grid had more electricity than was needed over the weekend. In previous years similar weather has forced wind farms to turn turbines off but now the spare electricity is exported or used by hydroelectric plants to pump water back into their dams — effectively storing the electricity for future use.

José Donoso, head of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, recalled that just five years ago critics had claimed the grid could never cope with more than 14% of its supply from wind.

“We think that we can keep growing and go from the present 17GW megawatts to reach 40GW in 2020,” he told El País newspaper.

drummer (Archaic): A salesperson who peddles wares in various towns.

Now there is a reason for such a prelude. A while ago, there was a post on this blog entitled “Scale, Scope and Speed.” Then, just the other day, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works moved S.1733 from committee. Some observed that the chair had avoided a delaying strategy, referred to as “Analysis Paralysis.”

This blog acknowledged those calls for further economic analysis. As the story goes, the Development is in the details, and Gail the Actuary suggests TOD (The Oil Drum) readers consider the details when reviewing “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030,” an article written for Scientific American by Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi.

The SciAm article proposes substituting WWS (Wind, Water, and Solar power) for all other forms of energy by 2030. If this idea seems familiar, then you may very well have already paid a visit to Repower America.

But, before we consider The Oil Drummer critique, with photos and captions added by yours truly, this blog would like to point out something. While the facilities that harvest clean energy require investment, the energy is free, rather than owned. There, indeed, may be some good reasons why such complete substitution is impractical with 20 years time. Still consider this. Suppose that you have a horde of gold; you are immeasurably wealthy. And, a drummer comes into your town and tells you that he has a machine that turns gold into horse manure. Consider what you might do and your motives for such action. Keep those thoughts in mind while you consider the following well developed critique (and remember, there’s a p0ny in there somewhere):

In terms of air pollution, the global shipping sector has gone largely unregulated. Yet, diesel engines on oceangoing vessels such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships are significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation’s cities and ports. Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel will be required for marine diesel engines in 2014 and for locomotives in 2015. In addition to contributing to destruction of the ozone layer and ocean acidification, SOx emissions are a main component of unhealthy smog in port cities.

• Airplanes. The authors propose that airplanes be powered by hydrogen powered fuel cells (with the hydrogen be made by hydrolysis using WWS energy sources). I understand that hydrogen is three times as bulky as gasoline, explodes easily, and escapes fairly quickly from its holding tanks, making it difficult to store for very long. It seems like airplanes and helicopters would need to look more like blimps, to hold the necessary fuel. Unless the explosion issue is solved, the popularity of hydrogen fuel cells would likely be pretty low.

• Ships. The authors don’t tell us how ships would be powered. Clearly sailing ships would meet the criteria, but would be quite slow. Because of their slow time for passage, we would need a lot more sailing ships than the types of ships we use now, because so many would be in transit at a given time. Barges could float down rivers, and if the current isn’t too strong, could perhaps be towed back in some way (boat with fuel cell?). Ships powered by hydrogen fuel cells might also work, but they would have the same issues as for airplanes. Because of their long trips, leakage would be more of an issue than on airplanes.

• Automobiles and Trucks. According to the authors, these would be powered by batteries or hydrogen powered fuel cells. There are several issues–the technology is only barely there for automobiles and trucks–for example, I don’t know of anyone working on battery-powered technology for long distance trucking. Fuel cell technology is very expensive. David Strahan in The Last Oil Shock says that the current cost is about $1 million dollars per car. He quotes the chief engineer at Honda as saying it would take 10 years to get the cost down to $100,000 a car.

Minerals shortages are also likely to be a problem for converting autos and trucks to batteries or to hydrogen fuel cells. The Scientific American article mentions following materials as being in short supply: rare-earth metals for electric motors, lithium for lithium-ion batteries and platinum for fuel cells. The article mentions recycling as a partial solution. Analyses published at The Oil Drum, such as this one, indicate that we would likely run out of rare materials fairly quickly, even with recycling.

• Farm equipment; bulldozers; cement mixers; and other heavy equipment. Would need to be converted to electric. It is not clear that the technology (or rare materials needed for the technology) exist to do so.

• Heating of buildings; heating for cooking and baking; hot water heating; commercial heating; heating of grains to remove excess moisture. Would need to be converted to electric, or in some cases solar. This would be true, even where heating is now done over wood or charcoal fires, such as in Africa or China.

• Mining and manufacturing. Would need to be converted to all electric. Presumably oil and natural gas extraction would continue, but at possibly lower rates, because of their uses for non-energy uses, such as textiles, asphalt, plastics and lubrication. Drilling for oil and gas would be converted to electric as well.

Sustainable development “is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for future generations.”

What steps would be needed to build all of these things?

It seems like we would first need to figure out what the end point would look like, and then work backwards.

We are told that the authors of the Scientific American article think we would need the following:

• 3.8 million large wind turbines

• 90,000 solar electricity generating plants

• “Numerous geothermal, tidal, and rooftop photovoltaic installations”

Besides these, we would need to build all of the new airplanes, ships, cars, trucks, heavy equipment, and new appliances that would be needed under the new regime. Individual homeowners would need to get their homes rewired for the larger amount of electricity they would use–especially if they are converting to electric home heating.

One thing we need to plan for is a greatly expanded and improved electrical grid. The Scientific American article indicates that the variability in generation would be mostly smoothed out by combining electrical transmission of many different types–wind, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and wave–over a wide geographical area. To do this will require considerable long distance transmission, often between different countries–including some that may not be friendly with each other. The grid will also need to be upgraded to be “smart,” so automobiles can draw electric power at the times of day when it is not needed elsewhere.

Once we have figured out what the new system will look like, we will need to figure out what kind of factories are needed to build all of the devices for the new system, and what raw materials the factories will need. Some of the raw materials can perhaps be obtained by recycling, and some factories can perhaps be obtained by converting other factories, but this won’t always be the case. It is likely that new factories will need to be built, and new mines opened, especially for the rare minerals.

By the time we start seeing many finished good produced, it is likely that we will be at least half way through the 20 year period. In part, this is because we are still working out technology details (for example, how to efficiently build a hydrogen fuel cell powered airplane). Also, once we get those details worked out, we need to build mines for raw materials and build the factories to make the new devices. It is only when we get those steps taken care of that we can build what we really want–the airplanes, the new ships, the wind turbines, the solar PV, and all of the rest.

When sizing the factories, we will need to size them not for “normal” production levels, but for converting the economy quickly to use the new power sources. For example, under normal circumstances, if earth-moving equipment is expected to last for 40 years, we would expect to need factories to make 1/40 of the world’s needed earth-moving equipment in a given year. But if we need to ramp up to replacement in 10 years, we will need 4 times as many factories. (What do we do with the excess factories at the end?)

An expanded and smarter electrical grid is necessary for the transmission of electricity from Renewable Energy Resources.

How much would this all cost?

The authors tell us that they expect the cost of the new WWS energy generation equipment would be $100 trillion over 20 years. But that doesn’t include the cost of all the new infrastructure to go with it–the new airplanes and ships and cars and trucks, or the electrical transmission lines. In total, the cost will be far higher than $100 trillion–lets guess $200 trillion–to be paid for over the next 20 years.

The Scientific American article gives the impression that the costs will be low, because it looks only at the cost the new electricity generation, and assumes that cost of generation will go down with volume and with additional research. It also implicitly assumes that debt financing over a long period, such as 40 years, will be used, so we don’t have to pay for the cost of the new system before we start using it. But how realistic is that?

The cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, coal fired power plants, etc. we are currently using won’t have much trade-in value once power is generated by WWS, and the new equipment will likely be fairly expensive. So we will be faced with buying new high priced equipment, with little trade-in value from what we used previously. In many cases, businesses would not normally be replacing equipment this soon. The debt that was taken on to pay for all of our current equipment won’t magically go away either–it will still need to be paid.

So how will we pay for all of the new equipment? The governments of the world are pretty much maxed out for borrowing. Companies are not going to be able to take on a project of this magnitude either, especially since they already have debt to service. It seems to me that the only way a program such as the program of WWS fuels replacing other fuels can be financed is through increased taxes that would cover each year’s expenditures, as they are made.

So let’s think about how much this would cost. $200 trillion over 20 years amounts to $10 trillion a year, spread over world economies. The US share of this would be something around 21%, based on the ratio of US GDP to world GDP. So let’s say that the US would need to fund $2.1 trillion a year. Let’s compare this to current taxes. In 2008, US Federal, State, and Local taxes combined amounted to $4.1 trillion according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. In order to collect $2.1 trillion more, a tax increase equal to slightly more than 50% of all taxes currently paid would be required. If the additional tax were collected as a percentage of “personal income” (which includes wages, social security income, rents, dividends, etc.), it would amount to 17% of personal income. It seems unlikely that a tax of this magnitude, or even half of this magnitude, would be agreed to by tax payers.

If such a tax were passed, after a few years there would be benefits that would start offsetting its cost, and might lead to a lower tax, and after 2030, perhaps lower costs overall, because it is no longer necessary to purchase fossil fuels. The benefits that would start offsetting costs would be sales of electricity and other energy, and sales or leasing of vehicles and other goods produced. Many of the sales of goods would be going to replace automobiles that had worn out, factories beyond their useful life, and ships that no longer had value to the owners.

The United States and China rely heavily on coal for their energy needs. It would seem that both countries plan to continue to depend on burning large amounts of coal for the foreseeable future. The question in these post-Kyoto years is what can and should the rest of the global community do about such disregard for the common welfare.

But there is a remaining issue. There will be a lot of assets which would still have considerable value in 2030, if it weren’t for the new law. For example, a new car with an internal combustion engine that was manufactured in 2028 will still have considerable value, and a gas fired stove a homeowner owns will still have value, even though he needs to replace it with an electric one. A coal fired power plant built in 1980 is likely to still have value, apart from this law, and so will all of the tankers used for international transport of oil, and all of the natural gas pipelines. Should the owners of these assets be compensated for value of their otherwise-useful assets? There is nothing built into the tax to do so.

It would seem to me that these owners should be compensated, even if it takes a higher tax to do so. In part, this compensation could come in the form of “trade in” value, if a new automobile or electric stove or other item is purchased. But suppose the assets that lose value belong to businesses, and aren’t easily traded in for corresponding asset–such as a coal fired power plant, or natural gas pipelines. I would argue that compensation for the remaining value of these is really needed as well.

The assets that will lose value because of the new law are typically owned by a company. The stocks and bonds of these companies will generally have a wide variety of owners–very often pension plans, insurance companies, endowment funds, and individuals saving for their retirements. If the otherwise-useful assets of these companies are taken without compensation, the companies are likely to default on their bonds, and the stocks of these companies will lose value. This will mean that some pension funds will not be able to pay their promised payments, and some life insurance policies will not pay as promised. If there is no compensation to these companies by a tax or some sort, the loss will flow through the system and hit others–with retirees likely hit the hardest. So there will be a loss to the system, one way or another.

An “indispensable one-stop shop for the cutting edge thinking about how we’re going to solve this problem.” Progressive Book Blub Review

How sustainable would this system be?

There are a number of weak areas in this system:

• There are not likely to be enough rare minerals (and even not-so-rare minerals), to make all of the desired high-tech end products. Recycling will help, but it is likely that the system will run into a bottleneck in not very many years.

• The system will use a huge number of electrical transmission lines. These transmission lines are subject to all kinds of disturbances–hurricane or other windstorm destruction, forest fires, land or snow slide, malicious destruction by those not happy for some reason (perhaps those unhappy by wealth disparities). Fixing lines that need repair will be challenging. We currently use helicopters and specialized equipment. These would need to be adequately adapted to a system without fossil fuels.

• If electricity is out in an area, pretty much all activity in an area will stop (except that powered by local PV), and there will be no back-up generators. Residents will not be able to recharge vehicles, so they will quickly become useless. Even vehicles coming into an area may get stranded for lack of recharge capability. Food deliveries and water may be a problem. The current system at least offers some options–back-up generators, and cars and trucks powered by petroleum that one can drive away.

• Operating the system will require a huge amount of international co-operation, because the transmission system will cross country lines. If one country becomes unable to pay its share, or fails to make repairs, it could be a problem.

• All of the high tech manufacturing will require considerable international co-operation and trade. This could be interrupted by debt defaults by major players, or by countries hoarding raw materials, or by difficulty in producing enough ships and airplanes to handle international trade.

• The system clearly can’t continue forever. It could be stopped by a lack of rare minerals, or international disputes, or lack of adequate international trade. The system doesn’t provide any natural transition to a truly sustainable future. For example, food production is likely to still be done using industrial agriculture, with the food that is produced shipped to consumers a long distance away. It will be difficult to transition to a system which is truly sustainable at the point the system stops working.

What would a reasonable time frame for transition be?

It seems to me that a reasonable time frame for a transition such as that discussed in the Scientific American article would be 50 years, rather than 20 years suggested in the Scientific American article. With such a time frame, there will be a little more time to fine tune technology, so as to find cost-efficient solutions that scale well. We also have more time to use the factories that are built, so that we don’t have to overbuild, just to meet a deadline. Costs are likely to much easier to handle, since there will not be as much of an overlap issue. In addition, there will be much less problem of having to dispose of other-wise useful assets.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Denmark Recovering from Fossil Fuel Addiction? (themoderatevoice.com)

• Solid Oxide Regenerative Fuel Cells
• Wind2H2
• EVermont Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station
• The ‘Other’ Geothermal
• RE<C

I know the difference a generation of young Americans in motion can make.

I was in college at a time of great political ferment and fundamental changes to our social fabric: the Civil Rights Act, the beginning of the counterculture and the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that set us on a disastrous path of deepening involvement in Vietnam.

When I came home from war disillusioned, I joined with millions of young people who marched against Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policy, against racial bigotry, against gender bias, and we changed our country for the better. We read Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and our generation formed the bedrock of the activism that gave America its first Earth Day and the modern environmental movement.

Now, it’s time for a new generation of Americans to get in motion — because the very survival of our planet depends on them.

[Editor's note: This blog would have said "get it on" and "life on the planet as we know it".]

Now is the time for young people who learned to flex their political muscle last November to shift into high-gear and get Washington to take on our historic legislation to combat global climate change.

Starting today I am challenging young Americans throughout the country to make their voices heard on this urgent matter. I am doing this through the Organize to be Heard Challenge.

Please visit http://consequence09.org/challenge for more information on the campaign.

I need you to help America seize control of our energy, economic and security future, and the future of generations to come.

Don’t think you can’t make a difference? You already have. In the last election, more than 24 million 18-to-29 year-olds went to the polls because it was time for a change. This critical mass of young people — the Millennial generation — changed the direction of our country in a profound way on education, the economy, foreign policy and, of course, global warming.

But you can’t stop now. We face a threat to the very existence of our planet. Rising sea levels, drought and famine will not stop without action — action now.

We can put America back in charge of its energy future. We can invest in our economy and create clean energy jobs. We can strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And we can secure our future by eliminating harmful pollution that threatens us all.

We can do all of this. We can do it together. And that, I can assure you, is what we’ve always done in America and what we can do again.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US to seek climate framework not legal pact (telegraph.co.uk)

• Looking for Leadership?
• What the Survey for Renewable Fuels Now Found
• Is Detroit Transportation Challenged?
• United States Unwilling to make a Climate Security Commitment
• Give ‘em Three Degrees Centigrade, Harry

House and Senate bills both propose the cap and trade system, which sets limits on pollutants and then allows utilities and other emitters to trade pollution permits among themselves. In testimony before the Senate Energy Committee on October 14, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that the “cap and trade” provisions in a bill passed by the House would cut U.S. GDP by between 1% and 3.5% by 2050.

*Note: HuffPo contributor A. Siegel provides an interesting critique of Republican criticism of the analysis that the EPA submitted.

The core problem for EPA analysis is that it is far too narrowly defined, focusing almost solely on only one segment of a four-part equation. The analysis is heavy on the costs of action in budgetary terms but with very limited discussion as to the benefits of action and, in essence, zero focus on the costs and (very limited) benefits of inaction. The EPA (and CBO and others) inadequately, for example, calculates the benefits to the economy of reduced fuel prices due to reduced demand. (Basic capitalist equation: supply vs demand. Reducing demand is, functionally, the same as increasing supply for price equation purposes.) The EPA did not consider the health care implications of fossil fuel pollution and how moving forward with global warming mitigation will, as a necessary corollary, drive down the pollution that is so seriously costing American society. (According to a study recently released by the National Academy of Sciences, this is a $120 billion / year cost. Oh, by the way, that study limited its examination to the use of fossil fuels and did not count implications of its production.) They do not examine productivity improvements that will occur due to greener work environments (and improved educational performance due to greening schools). Nor is there a valuing of the strengthened dollar due to reduced oil imports. Nor … The list of absent material is extensive enough to fill multiple books. And, these analysis do not even begin to calculate perhaps the most significant financial value of moving forward with climate change mitigation legislation: the insurance value for reducing the potential of (near) worst-case catastrophic climate change.

And, well, there is the real challenge that these analyses focus on “gross domestic product”, which is truly an inadequate measure of a society’s health and strength. For example, an oil spill will actually increase GDP (at least in the near term) due to the clean-up activities. Fossil-fuel pollution actually boosts (at least near and mid term) GDP due to the health care costs of treating asthma, mercury poisoning, cancers, and other resulting illnesses from that pollution. Thus, there is a fundamental question: do these analyses provide a meaningful window on societal strength and well-being?

Thus, James Inhofe, George Voinovich, and other Republican Senators staging their theater event today are absolutely right: the EPA (and CBO and …) analysis of climate legislation is inadequate. More importantly, Inhofe, Voinovich, and others are absolutely wrong as to why. Rather than failing to examine the true costs of action, these analytical organizations are failing to provide a robust window as to the much higher true costs of inaction and the much higher true benefits of action.

PS: Let us be clear, the problem really isn’t with the EPA analysts. The EPA study team clearly recognized that there is a larger picture than their analysis.

While this analysis doesn’t quantify the impacts of higher temperatures and other effects of increasing GHG concentrations, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (in its June 2009 report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States“) described the impacts that we are already seeing and that are likely to dramatically increase this century if we allow global warming to continue unchecked. In the report, it documents how communities throughout America would experience increased costs, including from more sustained droughts, increased heat stress on livestock, more frequent and intense spring floods, and more frequent and intense forest wildfires.

Despite an Old Boyz boycott by Republican committee members, S.1733 has left the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Repugnants made much of the testimony of the director of the Congressional Budget Office when it was originally released on Sept. 17, for a hearing in the same committee scheduled to take place that day. The hearing was postponed due the involvement of the panel’s chairman, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., in health-care deliberations. Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy Committee on October 14 and warned that “cap and trade” would have a negative impact upon U.S. GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

The strategy is familiar to those who study such things. The intent of such demands is to create “a reasonable doubt.” Wonk Room writer Brad Johnson was upset by other such reporting upon CBO testimony. “Although he [Elmendorf] recognized that his estimates do not take into account the economic impacts of climate change, he testified that the changes that scientists call “catastrophic” would be barely noticeable in the U.S. economy:

Most of the economy involves activities that are not likely to be directly affected by changes in climate. Moreover, researchers generally expect the growth in the U.S. economy over the coming century to be concentrated in sectors — such as information technology and medical care — that are relatively insulated from climate effects. Damages are therefore likely to be a smaller share of the future economy than they would be if they occurred today. As a consequence, a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7° Fahrenheit (F) by 2100. [Dale W. Jorgenson et al., 2004]

Elmendorf testimony, October 14, 2009

“In the last two years,” writes Joseph Romm, “our scientific understanding of business-as-usual projections for global warming has changed dramatically.” Yet denial by members of Congress persists at a time when “inaction is inexcusable” and insufficient measures, malignant.

Elmendorf goes on to cite Nordhaus & Boyer (2000) to claim “the risk of catastrophic outcomes associated with about 11°F of warming by 2100? gives a projected “loss equivalent to about 5 percent of U.S. output and, because of substantially larger losses in a number of other countries, a loss of about 10 percent of global output.” (By way of comparison, US GDP collapsed by nearly 50 percent during the Great Depression.)

This is frighteningly nonsensical. The CBO is arguing that the collapse of the national electricity grid, water supply, food system, and physical infrastructure from heat waves, desertification, disease outbreaks, wildfires, floods, and catastrophic storms would barely affect the national economy. In fact, seven to 11° F (4 to 6°C) warming would lead to unimaginable changes in our planet by 2100:

– One to three billion people around the world exposed to “increased water stress” (aka drought)

– More than 40 percent of the world’s species go extinct

– Widespread coral reef mortality

– Terrestrial biosphere becomes a net carbon source

– Productivity of cereal grains decreases in low, mid, and high latitudes

– Sea level rise of 0.6 – 1.3 meters (2 to 4 feet)

– About 35 percent of global coastal wetlands are lost

– Twenty percent of world’s population exposed to increased floods

– About 20 percent of arable land disappears (same amount becomes arable in previously frozen north)

– Arctic warms by 27°F

AP Photo: Julie Jacobson
“A sign outside the Iowa Welcome Center is partially submerged by flood water on June 15, 2008. The link between global warming and extreme weather events is evident, and research predicts that the trend will intensify, most likely causing more crop losses for farmers.”

The effects in the United States would be similarly disastrous:

— heat waves of greater than 90° six months of the year in Texas, Florida, Arizona, southern California

– 5-month heat waves in California interior, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina

– 4-month heat waves in Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina

– 4-month heat waves greater than 100° in Texas, Arizona, southern California

– 3-month heat waves greater than 100° in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, California interior

– 2 to 3-month heat waves everywhere in US except New England, northern Great Lakes, and the mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 1 to 2 months of greater than 100° everywhere except New York-New England, northern Great Lakes, mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 40 percent less precipitation in the Southwest

– Dust Bowl returns to Midwest

– Smog levels throughout summer above 10 ppb all across country

– Pollen count doubles again to four times pre-industrial levels

– Doubling of large wildfires in the West, as aspen and lodgepole pine disappear completely

– Tripling of coastal damage from storms

– Inundation of 10,000 square miles of U.S. land, including 25 to 80 percent of coastal wetlands

Texas and California, our top agricultural states, are already suffering from unprecedented heat and drought. Under 7 to 11°F warming, they would no longer be able to support agriculture. Corn crops start failing at above 90 degree weather, and soybean fails above 100 degrees. There would be no snow, maple, or cranberry industries in New England. The economists’ argument is that since the U.S. agriculture industry only represents about three percent of GDP, its total devastation would be hardly noticeable.

The above figures are actually misleading, because these are just the effects estimated under 4°C warming, not the even more unimaginable 6°C. Scientists are now warning that our current emissions levels may lead to 4°C warming by the 2070s.

Lecturing to a packed house at Stanford University Physicist James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, flashed photos of his grandchildren, observing “a basic conflict between fossil fuel special interests and the interests of young people, nature and animals.”

HuffPo contributor, oysterman and labor activist Brendan Smith has a different take on what Elmendorf omitted in his testimony before the Senate Energy Committee.

While fewer and fewer people are willing to publicly deny the validity of global warming science, those who oppose action to protect the climate have taken up a new strategy: Denying that climate change will have a major impact on the U.S. economy.

This denial is rejected by most economists who have studied climate change. In a survey of 144 top climate economists released November 4, 2009 by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, 84% agreed that “the environmental effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as described by leading scientific experts, create significant risks to important sectors of the United States and global economies.” A majority stated that sectors that will be negatively affected include agriculture, fishing, forestry, insurance, and health services.

But the profound negative economic impact of climate change is being largely ignored or denied in the current public policy debate. This denial threatens to have a significant effect on public policy. For example, testimony October 14, 2009 by Douglas W. Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, states, “Most of the economy involves activities that are not likely to be directly affected by changes in climate.” He claims that “a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7o Fahrenheit (F) by 2100.” He cites only two studies, one published in 2004; the other, which he describes as “The most comprehensive published study,” was published in 2000, a decade before current research on the impacts of climate change.

This testimony completely ignores the British government’s 700-page Stern Review, widely regarded as the most definitive study so far of the economic impact of global warming, released on October 30, 2006 by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern. It states, “Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.”

The CBO testimony ignores many studies that indicate significant negative effects of climate change on the U.S. economy in the coming years. For example, a study by the University of Maryland found that “the costs of climate change rapidly exceed benefits and place major strains on public sector budgets, personal income and job security. Because of the economic costs of climate change, we conclude that delayed action (or inaction) on global climate change will likely be the most expensive policy option.”

The CBO testimony ignores the June 16, 2009 government report Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. issued by the U.S. Global Change Research Program which described economically devastating results of global warming already under way:

• More rain is already coming in very heavy events, and this is projected to increase across the nation. This would have impacts on transportation, agriculture, water quality, health, and more;
• Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life, especially in cities;
• Warming will decrease demand for heating energy in winter and increase demand for cooling energy in summer. The latter will increase peak electricity demand in most regions;
• Water resources will be stressed in many regions. For example, snowpack is declining in the West, and there is an increasing probability of drought in the Southwest, while floods and water quality issues are likely to be more of a problem in most regions;
• In coastal communities, sea-level rise and storm surge will increase threats to homes and infrastructure including water, sewer, transportation and communication systems.

One small example of the way impacts of climate change are ignored: The CBO testimony states that the “medical care” sector will be “relatively insulated from climate effects.” Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. states on the contrary that “Climate change poses unique challenges to human health including heat waves and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by air pollution and airborne allergens, and many climate-sensitive infectious diseases.”

The CBO testimony also ignores a new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction. After reviewing effects on flooding, hurricane intensity, tourism, public health, water scarcity, shipping, agriculture, energy and infrastructure stress, and wildfires, the study concludes, “If global warming emissions continue unabated, every region in the country will confront large costs from climate change in the form of damages to infrastructure, diminished public health, and threats to vital industries employing millions of Americans . . . These projected costs of climate change do not include those that are critical but hard to quantify, such as costs stemming from changes to ecosystems and the need to relocate coastal communities.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Senate panel OKs climate bill as GOP boycotts (cnn.com)

• Censorship during War (against the environment) Times
• Denial of a Clear and Present Danger
• Thirsty for Climate Justice?
• More Significant Melting of Polar Ice Caps
• Water Shortage is a Major Impact of Climate Change