local warming

Losing ground in the Chesapeake Bay

2010-10-26T11:38:00.007-05:00

We've talked here before about how the Chesapeake Bay region is especially at risk from global warming because of how increasing sea levels will intensify effects already being seen from natural geological subsidence. The land mass is already sinking due to plate tectonics- one plate is being forced under another one. Combined with rising sea levels from global warming, Maryland is predicted to lose significant amounts of coasts and islands. A Washington Post article from Monday 10/25/2010, entitled Losing battle against the bay, presents a modern day Don Quixote's struggle and failure to save a two-story Victorian home on Holland Island.

For the past 15 years, a former minister named Stephen White had been trying to
hold back the water, protecting the house's foundations with timbers and rocks
and sandbags.
"I lie in bed and feel like I failed. And then I remember that
I did everything that I could," said White, who had first visited the abandoned
island as a boy.
Sea levels in the Chesapeake, scientists say, are rising faster than they are in some other coastal regions of the United States. One reason is ancient: The land here has been slowly sinking for thousands of years, settling itself from bulges created by the weight of Ice Age glaciers. The weight of glaciers to the north pushed the Earth's crust down, and the crust in this area went up like the other end of a see-saw. Now, the whole region is slowly sinking again.
The other reason is modern: climate change. The Earth's oceans are rising, scientists say, because polar ice is melting, and because warmer water expands. They have noticed the effect of climate change more in the past couple of decades, government scientists say.
These two factors mean that seas rise a tenth of an inch annually, eroding about 580 acres of Maryland a year, according to the state. The loss of land is all around the bay but is most noticeable on the low islands.
...It definitely won't, however, be the end of the Chesapeake's erosion problems. A few miles away, a watermen's community on Smith Island is just a few inches above the waves. And Maryland is contemplating how to, in one official's words, "facilitate abandonment and retreat" when faster-rising waters eventually threaten towns on the Eastern Shore's mainland.

Abandonment and retreat.

Photo by Astrid Riecken

No new nukes in Maryland

2010-10-12T12:11:00.003-05:00

Maryland will not have a new nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs anytime soon, according to ClimateProgress. The reason? Cost. I, for one, would love to see us do other things first and see how far that gets us:

Build up windpower resources in the wind belt and in offshore areas with adequate wind supply;
retrofit American homes with insulation and solar hot water heating; engage people in other energy saving techniques;
focus on increasing albedo (increasing the amount of sun and therefore heat that is reflected rather than absorbed) from surfaces like roofs and roads;
retrofit existing power plants;
and many other techniques to either reduce energy consumption, scrub filth out of smokestacks, use low-risk low-cost low-pollution energy sources, and/or reduce the heating on the earth's surface.

Climate change and roasted corn

2010-10-12T11:27:00.007-05:00

Hometown Annapolis has a clever article published 10/9 entitled, "Our Bay: Will Climate Change roast our corn crops?" The short answer is yes. The reason?

"Corn, which prefers growing at about 50 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit, will feel the effects from hotter temperatures and more destructive storms, pests, weeds, diseases and ozone pollution...More sweltering 90-plus-degree days could force a change in the way farmers grow corn, according to a report by Environment Maryland called "Hotter Fields, Lower Yields.""

It's heartening to see some critical thinking going on about how climate change will affect our region- particularly agriculture. Climate change is a hard issue to wrap peoples' heads around, but many of its effects are not. Specific ways that climate change will impact corn production, quoted from the article:

In midsummer, growers hope for cooler weather because of a roughly two-week window when pollination occurs.
If temperatures are searing, that can hinder kernel development, making the corn less tasty and robust. Currently, Pennsylvania summers are ideal for growing sweet corn, and these days Pennsylvania only experiences five to 10 August days when the temperature exceeds 90 degrees, according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. But by 2100, under the higher-emissions scenario, most of August (as well as July) in Pennsylvania is projected to exceed 90 degrees. Farther south, days would be even warmer.
Among climate change's curses is drought. Increased drought will mean more irrigation, especially where sandy soils (such as on Maryland's Eastern Shore) fail to hold water, says Robert Kratochvil, associate professor and extension specialist at the University of Maryland. But, increase irrigation too much and water tables can run low, creating water shortages.
Entomologists predict that warmer temperatures will expand insect ranges, and increase reproduction rates and overwintering success. As weed and pest ranges move north, farmers will have to apply more pesticides more frequently to keep corn yields up - meaning a higher financial and environmental cost. One sweet corn disease that farmers fear is Stewart's wilt, a disease transmitted by the corn flea beetle. Cold winters typically kill off populations of the beetles, but warmer winters may bring increased severity of Stewart's wilt. Farmers can choose to plant disease-resistant varieties of corn, but these varieties may be different in taste, texture and appearance than our favorite summertime staple. Another pest, corn earworm, may also be able to overwinter in a larger, more northern range. According to the New York Agricultural Extension's review of several studies, New York conditions currently require zero to five insecticide applications against lepidopteron insect pests to produce marketable sweet corn; Maryland and Delaware conditions require four to eight insecticide applications; for comparison, Florida conditions require 15 to 32 applications.
Climate changes since 1981 have already cost corn growers worldwide about $1.2 billion per year, according to Environment Maryland's report, which estimates that global warming will cost corn growers in the United States at least another $1.4 billion per year as temperatures continue to climb. In Virginia, that cost is projected at $5 million. Maryland fares worse with an estimated $6.2 million loss, and Pennsylvania stands to lose about twice as much at $13 million - about New York's estimated loss of $12 million.
Fickle weather has always challenged farmers, but climate change may mean growers must find new ways to adapt and adjust by investing in irrigation, using no-till practices (which help lock in moisture and sequester more carbon) and employing other techniques.

The kernel of the article: "If our lawmakers take climate change seriously and force energy conservation and development of technologies that cut carbon and greenhouse gases, then our warming may be a blip; keep on spewing greenhouse gases, and farmers of the next generation may have to adapt and adjust - at a higher cost."

I don't know if I agree with the conclusion; unfortunately a certain amount of warming now appears inevitable due to the residence time of greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere; however, there is no doubt that the sooner we act, the sooner we can stem problems like the loss of crops and the costliness of measures designed to protect crops.

Image from http://johansenhalim.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-place-for-hang-out.html

Vote for the winners of the CoolClimate Art Contest

2010-09-29T10:29:00.005-05:00

Vote for the best climate change art in the CoolClimate Art contest- we'll be announcing the top 5 winners at the Center for American Progress on October 7 as part of the 350.org effort to be held 10/10/10.

I'll be speaking as part of a Climate Change and Art panel at the Center for American Progress on October 7, where we'll be announcing the five winners. I am really excited about this for several reasons. 1) ClimateProgress is my favorite climate change blog, and it is sponsored by CAP 2) Van Jones is on the panel with me, and he is one of my heroes 3) David Ross, the former head of the Whitney and SF MoMA art museums is also on the panel, and I would like to meet him.

WHEN: The panel will take place at CAP on Thursday, October 7, 2010, 7:00 - 8:30 pm. A reception will follow.

WHERE: 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington DC, 20005

WHO: Panelists include:-

Van Jones, Senior Fellow at the center for American Progress

Danny Goldberg, President of Gold Village Entertainment

David Ross, Former head of the Whitney Museum and SF Museum of Modern Art

Shannon Moore, Artist

Moderator, Anna Soellner, Vice President for Communications, Center for American Progress

The audience will consist of approximately 100 environmental advocates and arts leaders.

WHAT: The purpose of the contest is to identify iconic images that address the impact of climate change and spur participation in the climate change debate. Over 1,000 submissions came in from all over the world – from France, Bolivia, Bucharest and Greece to Milwaukee, Nebraska, and North Carolina and Philadelphia. Twenty finalists have been selected by notable art experts and celebrities including:·

Jackson Browne (musician)

Chevy Chase (Comedian)

Jayni Chase (philanthropist)

Mel Chin (artist)

Dianna Cohen (artist)

Philippe Cousteau (ecologist)

Agnes Gund (collector & philanthropist)

Van Jones (environmental activist)

Carrie Mae Weems (artist)

David Ross (curator)

Starting today, the public will vote on the HuffingtonpPost.com to select top 5 Climate Artists of 2010: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/vote-for-the-top-five-coo_n_740171.html

We will be announcing the winners on October 7 at the Center for American Progress event. Winners will also be featured on the Planet Green Planet100 show. The announcement will also be made on the Huffington Post and on deviantArt, the largest social networking site for artists with 13.8 million members. The winning art will also be disseminated to non-profits and the press with appropriate credit to the Entrants. The announcement is strategically taking place in anticipation of 350.org's international day of climate action on 10/10/10. Attendees will be provided with image tool kits that support their use of the art finalists in communicating a climate change message. Other environmental organizations and 350.org organizers worldwide will be provided with an electronic version of the image tool kit as well.

Global Climate Change and Wildlife Talk at NCTC

2010-02-01T16:21:00.000-05:00

From NCTC:

On Monday, February 8, 2010 at 7:30 pm, scientist Virginia Burkett will present “Global Climate Change and Wildlife“ in the Byrd Auditorium at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) in Shepherdstown, WV.

Virginia Burkett is the Chief Scientist for Global Change Research at the U.S. Geological Survey. She was formerly Chief of the Forest Ecology Branch at the National Wetlands Research Center and Associate Regional Chief Biologist for the USGS Central Region. Dr. Burkett has served as Director of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program, Director of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Assistant Director of the Louisiana Geological Survey. She has published extensively on the topics of global change and low-lying coastal zones. She was a Lead Author on the United
Nation's IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports (2001 and 2007) and an IPCC Technical Paper on Water (2007). She coordinated both the Coastal and Southeast synthesis chapters of the U.S. National Assessment of climate change and its impacts. During her career Burkett has been appointed to over 40 Commissions, Committees, Science Panels and Boards.

The talk is free and open to the public. The NCTC is located at 698 Conservation Way along Shepherd Grade Rd. in Shepherdstown, WV 25443 approximately 70 miles west of Washington and Baltimore. No tickets or reservations are required. For more information on the series please visit: http://training.fws.gov/history/publiclectures.html or contact Mark Madison (Mark_Madison@fws.gov; 304 876-7276).

Talking about Copenhagen

2009-12-18T10:18:00.001-05:00

Hey folks. I got quoted in our local paper today, talking about the climate talks in Copenhagen:

Shannon Moore, manager of the Watershed Management Section for Frederick County, writes a blog on reducing carbon emissions in everyday life.
A major effect of Copenhagen will be how China is perceived, she said. China considers itself a Third World country and wants aid to help it become more energy-efficient.
"They want to act like a Third World country, but they're not," she said. China is a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from coal.
But the world needs to move away from looking at subsidies as a solution, and move toward more market-based solutions, she said.
"It is what is going to get us out of this problem," she said.
Companies in and around Frederick are developing solar and wind energy, and this kind of renewable energy technology will get people in the United States and abroad
focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, she said.
The U.S. is good at research and development, but it doesn't get much press, she said.
Climate change is already being felt. "Our climate is warmer," she said. "Where we used to get snow, we get rain. We've changed our hardiness zones. That affects
everything."

More carbon emissions from daily activities

2009-12-02T13:07:00.002-05:00

I saw an article in New Scientist today, and liked that it gave the carbon dioxide emissions of various daily activities (numbers are from the UK). Here they are in summary form:

Coffee: 1 cup of balck coffee causes about 125 g of CO2 emissions. 2/3 of this is from production and transport, and 1/3 is from the energy used to brew it. "175 kilograms: The annual CO2 emission of a six-a-day coffee habit. Equivalent to a single flight between London and Rome:
"Every kilogram of recycled tissue saves some 30 litres of water and between 3 and 4 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Since 1 kilowatt-hour of grid electricity is responsible for around 500 grams of CO2, that means a saving of 1.5 to 2 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of tissue...The average American gets through 23 toilet rolls each year, adding up to more than 7 billion rolls for the country in total."
"The energy required to collect, process and sell a reused item of clothing is only 2 per cent of the energy required to manufacture a new garment. Every kilogram of virgin cotton preserved by reusing second-hand clothing saves 65 kilowatt-hours of energy, equivalent to about 32.5 kilograms of CO2. For polyester, the savings rise to 90 kilowatt-hours per kilogram."
"A full load in a washing machine uses around 1.2 kilowatt-hours of electricity per cycle and tumble drying clocks up a further 3.5 kilowatt-hours, resulting in over 2 kilograms of CO2 emissions per wash. With four or five loads per household per week, the total annual emissions from each home can easily pass the half-tonne mark" [I have discussed the emissions from laundry here before].
"US households throw away around 30 per cent of their food, worth $48 billion every year...40,200 tonnes of milk are wasted each year in the UK, adding up to the equivalent of 40,000 tonnes of CO2. This is comparable to the annual CO2 emissions of 10,000 cars, or of flying 30,000 people from London to New York and back."
"Some plasma TV screens now measure more than 150 centimetres and, assuming average use, cause the emission of almost a tonne of CO2 each year."
"The must-have garden accessory of a few years ago, the patio heater remains the domestic antithesis of climate change mitigation. The little useful heat that does manage to redden the foreheads of those clustered nearby comes at a cost of around 10 kilograms of CO2 for just four hours' use."

Climate change may drastically alter Bay

2009-11-30T14:14:00.002-05:00

From the Smithsonian Institution:

It is one of the largest and most productive estuaries in the world, yet dramatic changes are in store for the Chesapeake Bay in coming decades if climate change predictions hold true, say a team of scientists from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the University of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University, and other research organizations in a recent paper published in the journal “Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science.”

Using forecasts of atmospheric carbon dioxide production for the coming century, the scientists predict the water of the Bay will see rising levels of dissolved carbon dioxide and higher water temperatures. As a result, climate change is expected to worsen problems of low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Chesapeake’s water and cause sea levels to rise.

For fish and other organisms living in the Bay, the scientists predict:
Populations of marine fish that favor warmer water and whose northern range
ends near the Chesapeake can be expected to increase. These include
southern flounder, cobia, Spanish mackerel, mullet, tarpon, black drum, red
drum, spotted sea trout, spot and Southern kingfish.
Many fish species that favor cold water will disappear or become less
abundant in the Chesapeake Bay, including soft clams, yellow perch, white perch,
striped bass, black sea bass, tautog, summer and winter flounder and scup;
Fish susceptible to winter die-offs due to the seasonal cold weather of the
Chesapeake may see a strengthening of their populations due to warmer water, with more juveniles surviving through the winter.
Warmer water also may result in longer growing seasons for fish, resulting
in increased yield by some commercial fisheries. Lack of surface freezing in
shoreline habitats could improve opportunities for oysters and other intertidal
species to colonize shorelines.
Some fish parasites also will likely benefit
from warmer water, increasing their impact on fish and oysters in the bay.
Rising sea levels will submerge some of the Bay’s wetlands, which many
ecologically and economically important fish use as nursery areas and as
foraging grounds. Degradation of these habitats could affect the larger
ecosystem of the Northeast U.S. continental shelf, as many of these species
spend their lives in the coastal Atlantic.
An increase of carbon dioxide in the water of the Chesapeake may raise the
acidity of the Bay and gradually reduce the ability of oysters, clams, mussels
and other animals to build calcium carbonate shells.
With warming temperatures, “the species that make up the food web of the Chesapeake Bay will be impacted differently, likely disrupting the normal predator prey interactions between these animals,” says Denise Breitburg, a scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md. Hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen in the water, will be one prevailing characteristic of warmer Bay water, Breitburg predicts. “At warmer temperatures microbes will consume oxygen at a higher rate and less oxygen can dissolve in warm water. At the same time fish and perhaps other animals, will require more oxygen in warmer water.” With these factors in mind, “we would expect more severe episodes and negative effects of low oxygen in the Chesapeake,” Breitburg says.

The scientific paper “Potential climate-change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay,” is available at the Web address: http://snurl.com/talub

US to announce new fuel emissions standards

2009-05-18T15:17:00.002-05:00

You knew it was coming. As early as Tuesday this week, according to the New York Times, President Obama is going to announce new national standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles. I quote items from the article:

As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
The president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states [including Maryland -s] and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single mileage rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard. Under that new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.

Next up: cap-and-trade.

Yes we can afford to curb climate change

2009-05-01T12:48:00.004-05:00

Today's editorial by Paul Krugman on cap-and trade is very well written and exposes the fallacious arguments on both sides of the cap-and-trade argument. On the left, you have greenies saying that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will involve no pain on the part of consumer. On the right you have arguments that the consumer's pocketbook will catch on fire. Neither is true. Though I don't always agree with Krugman (not that my opinion matters much; he has a Nobel and I have a blog) I do think we occupy a similar chasm; we are not joiners. People do not come to us for support but the media likes to ask us for our opinions. I was thinking about this in my own case and wondering if I could find a better way to be part of a movement but I think my drive for independent thinking continually keeps me on the outside.

Anyway, Krugman argues that the costs of cap-and-trade will be borne by anyone who uses fossil fuels that are regulated. This is only common sense. It is also common sense that these costs would not be more than the price of carbon per ton. He also explains how these costs will be phased in over time, and how the price pressures might encourage investment in substitutions. None of this is new and we have talked about it since forever. But he did say the following novel thing (emphasis mine):

To put it another way, a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.

I like it when people make me think.

US "ready to lead" on climate change

2009-04-28T08:46:00.002-05:00

From the New York Times online:

WASHINGTON — After eight years largely on the sidelines of the international policy debate on climate change, the United States is prepared to lead negotiations toward a new global warming treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

“The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad,” Mrs. Clinton told delegates from 16 countries at a State Department conference on energy and climate. “We are back in the game.”

The meeting in Washington was the first of three planned sessions among the participating countries, who together account for roughly 75 percent of emissions of the gases blamed for the heating of the planet. Officials said the conference, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, was intended to supplement, not replace, broader talks that begin in Copenhagen in December to write a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

It's about time.

Climate change news: API and cronies lied

2009-04-24T13:02:00.004-05:00

It's hard to keep up with climate change news, these days, and I think that's a good thing. It used to be that you could write a blog about climate change and comfortably cover the main points on many fronts; we are at a critical mass. I feel like the strength of Local Warming is the focus on how individuals can save energy, money and greenhouse gases. I have also volunteered to help a local church with an energy audit so that I can become better versed in this topic to share with many of you who run commercial/institutional facilities.

But I still love the news. I especially love reading about climate news on the front page of the New York Times website:

First, NYT reports that a document filed in a lawsuit has produced "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer," an internal document written for the American Petroleum Institute and its cronies in the Global Climate Coalition. This document shows that in 1995, GCC was fully aware that humans were increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that would cause global climate change, though they debated if such climate change was already occurring. The report states unequivocally that:

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

Why does this matter? It matters because people who stood to make a profit from the consumption of fossil fuels lied to the public and to regulators about the risks from greenhouse gases. It also diminishes the standing that groups like API and the GCC have now that allow skeptics and deniers to continue to prevent us from acting on our own behalf.

Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.

In other words, the obstruction of action in regards to climate change was a jaded ploy to make money at the expense of the public and the health of the planet, and it continues today. Let's change this sooner rather than later.

Carbonless energy for Pepco, BGE <$ than coal

2009-04-24T08:25:00.003-05:00

If you use BGE or Pepco, CleanCurrents is offering "a new carbon neutral electricity option for people in the Chesapeake region. C-Green combines standard electricity from the Mid Atlantic grid (the PJM grid) with Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs” or “green tags”) from wind farms situated across the United States, bundled together and supplied by Washington Gas Energy Services, a licensed retail energy supplier in MD and DC. This bundled product helps fight global warming by offsetting the carbon emissions from your electricity use with clean, renewable wind power." According to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, this is cheaper than coal power in the region.

If you live in Montgomery County you can get this in addition to the cheap, clean power:

SPECIAL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD RESIDENTS
The Montgomery County Clean Energy Rewards Program gives county residents a reward of a 1/2 cent per kWh (.5¢ or $.005) for up to 20,000 kWh of clean energy purchased. Clean Currents was a founding member of the program with RECs and C-Green.

More Catholics think global warming manmade

2009-04-24T08:17:00.005-05:00

The elections are over, but FiveThirtyEight.com is still going strong. A recent post by Nate Silver called The Pope and the Planet caught my eye: "The institution of the Catholic Church is often unpopular with liberals for its position on issues like family planning, but it can also be a force for social progress. In particular, the first thing I noticed from this Gallup survey on attitudes toward global warming is that the percentage of persons who think global warming is manmade appears to be much higher in predominately Catholic nations than in Protestant ones...In majority-Catholic nations, on average, 65 percent of adults believe that global warming is manmade, versus 47 percent in Protestant ones (the figure for the United States, which has a Protestant majority, is 49 percent). Countries with an Orthodox majority are somewhere in the middle, as are those where a majority is Christian, but neither Catholic or Protestant theologies predominate. Buddhist countries also seem more inclined toward environmental protection; Islamic ones appear less so." Nate and I both attribute this to the actions of the Pope, who has been extremely outspoken about the need to curb manmade global warming.

Five energy saving products for Earth Day

2009-04-22T15:44:00.002-05:00

Happy Earth Day! In celebration I thought I would highlight five products that I have come across that I think could save energy, save money, and save greenhouse gases. These are culled from a much larger list of products. In most cases, I have either tried them myself or know someone who has tried them. I am not a big product promoter and am not making money off of these. But they stand out. I still think most of these products are too expensive for the average consumer, but I am going to run some numbers to see what the payback periods are for them.

1. Earth LED EvoLux bulbs: They turn on quickly like incandescents, and fit in a regular fixture. 13 watts at a 100 watt equivalent. At $80 a piece, these are pretty expensive. Over 10 years at an electricity cost of $0.10/kwh, each one would save you $212.76 including the averted cost of replacement light bulbs. These are the first LED lights for home uses that glow like an incandescent bulb.
2. CREE recessed LED down light: These award-winning lamps put out a solid glow that looks like an incandescent fixture. The intial cost is $130, about $100 more than a standard can light. But over ten years using one bulb 8 hours a day, you will save $196.20 in electricity and bulb replacement savings. The payoff is about 3 years, 3 months if your electricity costs $0.10/kwh.
3. Athalon LED exit light replacement: Replace the incandescent bulbs in your exit lights. They stay on all the time so the savings really add up. They cost about $12.95. One watt versus the 20w standard, on for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and you'll save 166o kilowatts every ten years. You'll also save $160 in electricity in ten years, plus the $18.75 in replacement bulbs minus your original bulb cost of $12.95, for a total of $165.80 . About 9.4 month payback period.
4. ScanGaugeII: Not only can this meter give you real-time mpg feedback (like what you would get on a Prius) to make you change your driving habits, it also can read diagnostic codes for your vehicle. My dad discovered he had a bad O2 sensor, and replaced it himself. He saved the cost of going to a shop, plus the vehicle runs more efficiently. Costs about $159. Estimates on savings vary. I am testing this out with a Boy Scout Venture Crew as part of an energy saving project they are doing, and will let you know.
5. Belkin Remote Control Power Strips: Yes, we know we should use power strips with surge protectors, and we do, but they are difficult to reach. Not any more. Cost- about $50. Savings- I assume you're using a power strip already, so the remote is about convenience. But if you're not, you'll save vampire power from whatever you plug into the strip.

BREAKING: EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger US

2009-04-17T12:36:00.002-05:00

From the Environmental Defense Fund:

*** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS ***

EPA formally declares global warming to be a threat to Americans' health and well-being.

In an historic decision moments ago, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a proposed ruling that global warming pollution "endangers" Americans' health and well-being.

Today's action sets the stage for using authority under the Clean Air Act to establish national emission standards for large global warming emitters.

EDF's deputy general counsel Vickie Patton says that with today's announcement, "The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change. EPA's action is a wake up-call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future."

The EPA is now expected to begin developing national emission standards for new motor vehicles and new coal-fired power plants, the nation's two largest sources of global warming pollution.

Today's action comes as Congress prepares to take its own historic steps toward enacting a cap on global warming pollution.

Next week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearings on comprehensive energy and climate legislation and move quickly to a vote on the bill. Chairman Henry Waxman has committed to moving the bill -- the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- out of committee by Memorial Day.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she intends to bring the bill to the House floor this year.

George Will blasted over climate editorials

2009-04-10T13:24:00.002-05:00

From Friends of the Earth:

In late February, after George Will published an erroneous and misleading Washington Post column attempting to sow confusion about global warming science, more than 5,000 Friends of the Earth activists contacted the Post's ombudsman and demanded a correction. The paper refused to issue one, but now numerous Washington Post employees -- including some of its news reporters -- are publicly criticizing Will.
In just the last week, reporters Mary Beth Sheridan and Juliet Eilperin called Will out in a news column reporting on recent Arctic ice melts, Post "Weather Gang" writer Andrew Freedman called Will's assertions "misleading,"Post columnist Eugene Robinson criticized Will on national television, and Post cartoonist Tom Toles mocked Will in a sketch. We can only hope Will pays attention to his colleagues and stops lying about the climate crisis.

The right always claims that climate skeptics are libeled and slandered when they attempt to express an unpopular opinion. Certainly people have jumped on George Will. But are they slandering him? Or are they exposing that his writing is ill-informed and misleading?

Obama team changes US tune on climate change

2009-03-30T13:31:00.003-05:00

This time around, the U.N. climate talks look quite different. According to MSNBC, the Obama Administration has made some pretty compelling statements.

Sunday...President Barack Obama's envoy pledged to "make up for lost time" in reaching a global agreement on climate change.
Todd Stern also praised efforts by countries like China to reign in their carbon emissions, but said global warming "requires a global response" and that rapidly developing economies like China "must join together" with the industrial world to solve the problem.
"We are very glad to be back. We want to make up for lost time, and we are seized with the urgency of the task before us," Stern said to loud applause from the 2,600 delegates to the U.N. negotiations.
They clapped again when Stern said the U.S. recognized "our unique responsibility ... as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases," which has created a problem threatening the entire world.
Stern said no one on his team doubted that climate change is real. "The science is clear, the threat is real, the facts on the ground are outstripping the worst-case scenarios. The cost of inaction or inadequate action are unacceptable," he said — a total change of tone from his predecessors.
"America itself cannot provide the solution, but there is no solution without America," he said.

Greenhouse gas bill passes MD legislature

2009-03-27T16:06:00.001-05:00

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network reports that "the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act passed the House of Delegates today! Since it passed the Senate earlier this month, all that lies between Maryland and comprehensive global warming policy is Governor O'Malley's signature! "

MD climate bill likely to pass House

2009-03-27T11:03:00.003-05:00

According to Baltimore Sun's Bay and Environment Blog, the Maryland "House of Delegates gave preliminary approval...to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act, turning aside a "killer" amendment offered by the chamber's Republican leader." The blog further asserts that the bill is likely to pass, having already passed the Senate as "a parallel measure."

The bill is likely to be successful this year because it exempts manufacturing from emissions controls. "Del. Brian McHale, a Baltimore Democrat supporting the bill...said manufacturers produced only a small share of the greenhouse gases, and they were exempted to spare them from being put at a competitive disadvantage with factories in other states lacking greenhouse gas regulations. "

Obama to shelve cap-and-trade, pushes green NRG

2009-03-25T08:00:00.003-05:00

Last night's Presidential press talk was a moment for the global warming wonks like myself. First, I got to hear over and over that the President considers climate change/pollution/renewable energy to be one of his top three issues, and hear the issue presented as a pillar of economic recovery. Second, I got to hear a member of the media ask President Obama about how determined he is to pass a cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases.

Though the New York Times this morning says that Obama has indicated he is willing to shelve the bill (from the President:"The bottom line is, is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit."), what we also heard from the President last night is his dogged determination to get it passed, and to reinvent the engine of the economy. We also heard the president include for the first time many members of the media like the Black and Latino presses, that typically are not heard. This decision is inclusive, but more than that, allows the President to reconstruct a narrative for the public that is not dominated by the media cabal. As the New York times noted, the President did not take answers from mainstream papers last night. And as many noted the previous evening, the President did not preside over the annual Gridiron dinner by and for the press. What you have seen the past week is an attempt by the president to speak directly to the people on issues that he is going to be hammering over and over. And luckily, one of those issues is of interest to us here.

Quotes from the President's press conference on renewable energy/clean energy:

We invest in the renewable sources of energy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and less dependence on foreign oil. We invest in our schools and our teachers, so that our children have the skills they need to compete with any workers in the world.
At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest. And that's what clean energy jobs and businesses will do all across America.
What I've said here in Washington is that we've got to make some tough choices. We've got to make some tough budgetary choices. What we can't do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth, investments that are critical to the future, and that's why my budget focuses on health care, energy, education, the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth, as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we've seen over the last several years.
I've said that we've got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy...When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we've got to move to a new energy era, and that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth. I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere. The way it's structured has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through. Our point in the budget is: Let's get started now. We can't wait. And my expectation is that the Energy Committees or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It will be authorized. We'll get it done. And I will sign it. OK?
[about the President's budget] The bottom line is, is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit...what I said was that I haven't seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is, is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit.
Now, none of us knows exactly what's going to happen 6 or 8 or 10 years from now. Here's what I do know: If we don't tackle energy, if we don't improve our education system, if we don't drive down the costs of health care, if we're not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won't grow 2.6 percent, we won't grow 2.2 percent. We won't grow.
But I'm – look, I'm not going to lie to you. It is tough. As I said, that's why the critics tend to criticize, but they don't offer an alternative budget. Because even if we were not doing health care, we were not doing energy, we were not doing education, they'd still have a whole bunch of problems in those out-years, according to CBO projections. The only difference is that we will not have invested in what's necessary to make this economy grow.
Now, the alternative is to stand pat and to simply say, we are just going to not invest in health care. We're not going to take on energy. We'll wait until the next time that gas gets to $4 a gallon. We will not improve our schools. And we'll allow China or India or other countries to lap our young people in terms of their performance. We will settle on lower growth rates, and we will continue to contract, both as an economy and our ability to – to provide a better life for our kids.
I think that when it comes to domestic affairs, if we keep on working at it, if we acknowledge that we make mistakes sometimes, and that we don't always have the right answer, and we're inheriting very knotty problems, that we can pass health care, we can find better solutions to our energy challenges, we can teach our children more effectively, we can deal with a very real budget crisis that is not fully dealt with in my, in my budget at this point, but makes progress.

EPA finds GHGs endanger humans

2009-03-23T15:56:00.004-05:00

From the New York Times:

The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to declare that greenhouse gases are pollutants that pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare. That determination, once made final, will pave the way for federal regulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.

This endangerment finding is significant because it triggers the Clean Air Act and "would allow federal regulation of motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. If further action is taken by the E.P.A., it could open the door to regulatory controls over power plants, oil refineries, cement plants and other factories that emit such gases."

This is happening at the same time that the Maryland legislation is being considered in the House, after passing in the Senate. The MD legislation exempts manufacturing.

Representative Ed Markey stated that "this finding will officially end the era of denial on global warming.” But I doubt this could be true since we are still fighting over evolution. But if the finding marginalizes the anti-science wackadoos further, so that we win more of the people in the middle, then hooray!

The Obama Administration is already counting on revenue from a Cap-and-Trade system, so the deck has been stacked. Expect more findings and decisions to start rolling out.

Finally, some climate literacy

2009-03-19T15:25:00.002-05:00

Tired of people saying that global warming can't be real because today is cold? Or because this winter is colder than last winter? Or any of a number of other arguments that show a complete misunderstanding of climate science, or scientific principles in general? NOAA has published "Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Sciences," a publication which claims that "CLIMATE SCIENCE LITERACY IS A PART OF SCIENCE LITERACY." Do I sense a reaction to right-wing ideology here? The publication discusses some topics like "consensus" and "peer review", issues of basic scientific literacy which determine if someone is worth listening to in regards to the issue of global warming. Perhaps you can hand this out the next time you hear someone loudly proselytizing about how global warming is a hoax.

"No, my friend, it is science."

Nuclear waste mgmt hampers alternative energy

2009-03-18T10:22:00.003-05:00

An Op-Ed in today's New York Times by Stephanie Cook asserts that the Energy Department is so overwhelmed with the maintenance of over 1000 cold war-era weapons sites that it can't focus on alternative energy. For the Energy Department, "approximately two-thirds of its annual budget, which is roughly $27 billion, is spent on...managing the thousands of facilities involved in producing nuclear weapons during the cold war, and the associated cleanup of dozens of contaminated sites." The piece also claims that the continuing link to nuclear weapons labs prevents more energy money from actually going into the development of alternatives. It proposes that nuclear waste be the provenance of another governing body, and suggests a few.

For me, this editorial is a reminder that the solutions to our energy problems are highly complex. I worry for this administration; even if it has the best of intentions, it still has to catch the tiger by its tail. No one else has done this, and I see why. The complexities and dependencies created by past obligations and precedents are so strong. The article also reminds me that it is always the people, often in the form of government, who pay for the externalities of nuclear. Isn't it time that we moved forward to forms of energy that will not leave us with legacies that we will be paying for later?

Personal carbon reductions in March Nat Geo

2009-03-16T21:49:00.002-05:00

I was at the grocery store this weekend when I saw the cover of the March National Geographic about energy conservation. I knew instantly it must have been written by Peter Miller, who came to our first Carbon Reduction Action Group meeting back in November 2007. I emailed him to thank him for the article, in which he describes the efforts of his family and friends to reduce their energy consumption, costs, and greenhouse gases. He asked how our CRAG is doing and if we had gathered momentum. I told him that there are about 10 people interested in tracking their emissions. Other people come to meetings to hear speakers, which I think is also good.

We have not yet counted our emissions from last year, and I need to get on the ball with setting up a tour at the house of a local planner who did what he self-termed "LEED Stainless Steel" in an attempt to build a green home.

I am thinking April would be good.