Climate Change VI
Submitted by Real Science on June 19, 2006 - 8:00am.
Real Science
Science is the lifeblood of our civilization. It's what has made the modern world possible. It's why the planet supports six billion people and not several hundred million. It's what has distinguished this modern age. It has tremendous benefits, and that carries with it tremendous responsibilities and risks.
-Wesley K Clark, YearlyKos 2006
The climate change series has so far dealt with issues such as: What is climate change? Is man impacting the climate? What are some of the possible consequences of climate change? This post will deal with the question: What needs to be done to prevent catastrophic climate change?
The changes that need to be made in the types of energy we use are immense, but we need to begin making these changes now. In pre-industrial revolution days, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million (ppm). Currently, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen to about 380 ppm. At our present rate we are increasing carbon emissions by 1.5% per year. If we continue with business as usual (BAU), then by 2050 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have risen to about 750 ppm, or about twice the level of CO2 that we have today. The goal of most climate scientists is to keep CO2 levels below 500 +/- 50 ppm by 2050. In order to do that, we need to keep our CO2 emissions at their current level of 7 billion tons of carbon/year (or GtC/yr). This process is referred to as “decarbonization” of the energy supply.
We have been in the process of decarbonizing our energy already as we have moved from coal to oil to natural gas as sources of energy. This process is going to have to be intensified if we are going to meet the goal of stabilizing CO2 concentrations at 500 +/- 50 ppm by 2050.
There is no one technology that can solve our problem. Two professors from Princeton, S. Pacala and R. Socolow, have proposed a strategy for stabilizing CO2 emissions at 500 ppm using current technology.
In the first graph below, the blue area corresponds to a path (WRE500) that stabilizes CO2 emissions at 500 ppm. The green area, labeled BAU (Business as usual), illustrates what will happen to CO2 levels in the atmosphere if we continue to ignore the issue and just keep on doing what we are currently doing. In the second graph, Pacala and Socolow divided the excess CO2 emissions into 7 wedges. Each wedge is equivalent to reducing future emissions by 1 billion tons of carbon/yr (1GtC/yr.) for 25 years. Pacala and Socolow then suggested 15 possible options (wedges) using existing technologies that could be used to stabilize CO2 emissions.
The 15 possible “wedges” they suggest “can be achieved from energy efficiency, from the decarbonization of the supply of electricity and fuels (by means of fuel shifting, carbon capture and storage, nuclear energy, and renewable energy).” In each case the authors detail what it would take to make that wedge option equal to a reduction of 1 billion tons of carbon/year. Obviously, the sooner these changes are made the better. Starting immediately would require using 7 wedges or options; if we delay, then 10 might be required, etc. The authors freely admit that there are other possible options available, and new ones could be added if needed. However, one of our main reasons for looking at this paper and the collective options it highlights is that it makes obvious how much we need to do in order to address the challenge of stabilizing CO2 emissions.
The table below is based on the article by S. Pacala and R.Socolow. which can be found in its entirety at the following site:
http://fire.pppl.gov/energy_socolow_081304.pdf
Table 1: Potential Wedge Options: Strategies to reduce carbon emission rate by 1 billion tons/year or 25 billion tons of carbon/25 years.
Table is based on publication by S. Pacala and R. Socolow, Science: 305, 968-972, 2004.
Energy efficiency and conservation
| Wedge Option | Effort required to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons/year for 25 years. |
| 1. Efficient vehicles | Increase fuel economy for 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg |
| 2. Reduced use of vehicles | Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30 mpg cars from 10,000 to 5000 miles per year |
| 3. Efficient buildings | Cut carbon emissions by one-fourth in buildings and appliances |
| 4. Efficient baseload coal plants | Produce twice today’s coal power output at 60% instead of 40% efficiency (today efficiency is 32%) |
CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS)
| Wedge Option | Effort required to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons/year for 25 years. |
| 5. Capture CO2 at baseload power plants | Introduce CCS at 800 (billion watt) coal or 1600 (billion watt) natural gas plants (compared with 1060 (billion watt) coal plants in 1999) |
| 6. Capture CO2 at H2 plants | Introduce CCS at plants producing 250 million tons of H2 per year from coal or 500 million tons of H2 per year from natural gas (compared to 40 million tons of H2 per year from all |
| 7. Capture CO2 at coal to synfuels plant | Introduce CCS at synfuels plants producing 30 million barrels a day from coal if half of feedstock carbon is available for capture |
Fuel Shift
| Wedge Option | Effort required to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons/year for 25 years. |
| 8. Gas baseload power for coal baseload power | Replace 1400 (billion watt) 50%-efficient coal plants with gas plants (four times the current production of gas-based power) |
| 9. Nuclear power for coal power | Add 700 (billion watt) plants (twice the current capacity). |
| 10. Wind power for coal power | Add 2 million (1 million watt) peak windmills (50 times the current capacity) |
| 11. Photovoltaic (solar) power for coal power | Add 2000 (billion watt) peak photovoltaic plants (700 times current capacity) |
| 12. Wind H2 in fuel-cell car for gasoline in hybrid car | Add 4 million (1-million watt) peak windmills (100 times the current capacity) |
| 13. Biomass fuel for fossil fuel | Add 100 times the Brazil or U.S. production, with the use of one-sixth of the world cropland. |
Forests and Agricultural Soils
| Wedge Option | Effort required to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons/year for 25 years. |
| 14. Reduce deforestation, plus reforestation and afforestation (planting new forests where none existed before.) | Decrease tropical deforestation to zero instead of 0.5 billion per year, and establish 300 million hectares (or 741 million acres) of new tree plantations (twice the current rate). |
| 15. Conservation tillage | Apply to all cropland (10 times the current usage) |
The first 3 strategies deal with conservation, and should be the least controversial ones. Conservation is something all countries can strive for, and the US, in particular, can reduce their emissions considerably: by increasing fuel efficiency, as described in option 1; by decreasing the average miles driven, as described in option 2 (increasing the amount of public transportation available and developing programs for telecommuting); and by improving building and appliance efficiency, as described in option 3. These three conservation strategies can be done with little disruption of our daily lives.
Many of the other options (wedges) are more controversial. At least some strategies seem to conflict. For example, it would be difficult to reduce deforestation and develop new forests (14) while, at the same time, using 1/6 of the available cropland to develop biomass to be used as fuels (13). Choices will have to be made.
The process of sequestering the CO2 from burning coal is technically feasible (options 5,6,7), but will governments mandate sequestration? Who will regulate the storage facilities and make sure that the CO2 remains sequestered for decades? What happens if the CO2 begins to leak from the storage facilities?
Switching plants from coal to natural gas (option 8) may become very difficult as the supply of natural gas declines. The production of natural gas in the US has peaked or is about to peak, which will mean that natural gas will have to be imported as liquid natural gas. Is it better to use the remaining natural gas supply for heating homes or for generating electricity?
Regardless of which strategies (wedges) are adopted, it is important that we act now, and not put the problem off for another decade. Delay will only make the transition period more difficult.
What can we, as individuals, do?
There are many things that we, as individuals, can do to reduce the amount of CO2that we emit in our daily lives. For example:
- When you purchase a new car, buy the most energy efficient model available.
- Slow down when you drive. A car is most energy efficient at 55 mph.
- Reduce the number of miles you drive your car by combining trips, walking, bicycling, or using public transportation.
- Replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs.
- Further insulate your home.
- Turn you thermostat down in the winter and up in the summer. You don’t have to have your house at 70oF at all times.
- Buy the most energy efficient appliances available when you replace your old one. Look for Energy Star appliances.
- Consider using solar energy to heat your hot water. This technology is readily available and works well.
- Consider using photovoltaic (solar) panels on your home to produce your own electricity. This is a particularly good strategy if you live in the southern part of the country.
- When you replace your furnace, consider buying a heat pump, which is a more efficient way of heating and cooling your house.
You can calculate your own contribution to greenhouse gas emissions at these sites:
http://www.climatefriendly.com/calc.php
http://fightglobalwarming.com/carboncalculator.cfm
In addition to individual actions, we need to persuade our local, state, and federal government to take action. Some states are requiring that their power companies provide a certain percentage of their electrical power from renewable energy sources. California requires 33% renewable energy by 2020; New York requires 25% by 2020; and New Jersey requires 20% renewable energy by 2020. We can all lobby our state utilities or electric power companies to increase the amount of renewable energy sources. We can also ask our local, state, and federal representatives about their position on climate change and help elect people who care about this issue.
If we are going to prevent catastrophic climate change, then everyone must work together to decarbonizes our energy sources. A successful strategy will require leadership, diplomacy, and the combined efforts of all of us.
The Real Science Team: archimedes, LindaG, Judy from NJ, Knightrider
Thanks for pointing that out, LJM. I can't tell you how impressed I am with the work and thought put into that plan by those folks. Whatever people think about this or that part of that plan, or the plan as a whole, it is an instrumental one in getting the dialogue going (including with our leaders - due to its scope and thinking and the care they went through to lay it out).
Folks can find the plan we're talking about, called "Energize America," within Jerome a Paris' diary... Just look for all of the recent diaries w/ "Energize America" in the title.
We'll be starting on the topic "energy" next. This entry above marks what we can think of as a transition entry from the topic of global warming/climate crisis to the topic of energy (kind of an epilogue to one and prologue to the other).
For in considering what our options are for energy in moving forward, we *must* keep well in mind the parameters that global warming is urging upon us in terms of CO2 emissions. So that we, in effect, have a two-headed challenge in terms of our climate and what's occuring within the world's use of energy that is now upon us...
But you bet, I think the plan brought forward through "Energize America" is something we should all become familiar with and engage in discussion about...
That plan, put together by people meeting and sharing ideas within the netroots (and there are no geographical boundaries on the net), is another example of what possibilities this kind of community-building allows for - just incredible!
...plan above brings to the fore (as is the case with the "Energize America" plan) is that we are likely looking at a cumulative/coordinated/multiple solution to both the CO2 problem and the energy problem; rather, than just one "silver bullet" type thing.
The other significant point that we were trying to bring forward by highlighting this plan from Pascala and Sacalow is that it makes quite clear the scope of what we're dealing with when it's said that we need to set a goal of stabilizing CO2 emissions to no more than double what they were at preindustrial levels. And keep in mind that even that change - the doubling of CO2 emissions from pre-industrial emissions - is an extraordinary one for our climate and that we are already looking at significant change.
But the key here is that if we do not address this problem in the present (but, instead, keep going w/ "business as usual,") we are in danger of raising the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to far more than twice that of the pre-industrial levels, and we most definitely want to steer clear of that...
He's the one I quoted who said basically that we can tackle this thing if we find it important enough to do so, if we just "give a damn."
But as Clark and Gore and the crew at Real Climate and at The Union of Concerned Scientists and w/ Energize America and others are urging, the public needs to become much better informed about these issues so that a new public will, calling out for the changes necessary, can be generated... We must change the public will. If we do that, policy will follow...
Very straight forward and to the point, completely devoid of any spin, just the facts. It shows us what our real choices are as a society and what are real choices are as individuals. Laid out plane as day for all to see.
"Where there is no vision the people persih"
...presentation - both in his slide show & discussion (highlighted in the movie, An Inconvenient Truth) and in his book.
And, as mentioned in my other comment, Kolbert interviews Socolow in her book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, which we highlighted in an earlier entry.
So that's another reason for highlighting this plan as one to introduce folks to possible solutions, for Gore's movie/book, as well as Kolbert's book, will have made it somewhat familiar for folks.
Judy - our own Judy from NJ deserves kudos for being the author of this entry, by the way - points out a link to the Pacala and Socolow article as a whole just before the graphs, and it's well worth a read in its entirety. I hope folks will take a look at that. It's fairly short, about 5 pages.
Just a couple of theators play it in each state. I hope that Gore gets his movie gets featured on a cable program or as a primetime special in the networks later this summer!
---------------------------
"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that's not wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.)
It's now in some 400 theaters, going up from 100 and something last week. We've now got it in 5 mainstream theaters around Houston, one in each major region of our huge area, rather than just the exclusive showing at one of our art houses - which it debuted at last week. I was hoping for that, and this morning, I see that's the case.
Hopefully, the cumulative distribution will continue, even into some of the more rural areas.
I can't see too many movies these days, but I've put aside some money to go see this with my family...
I saw Gore's movie in our local theater and was quite impressed. It is most encouraging that at least some politicians take global warming seriously, as they really should. Gore has brought the issue up front, where it cannot be ignored.
Unfortunately, I'm seeing new books out there that "debunk" global warming and a few are fairly popular. At least a sizable group of the public don't want evidence, they want reassurance that all is well. How do we deal with this? To implement any corrective action we need to educate the public on the evidence. Gore's movie and book and General Clark's discussions of the issue will certainly help, but the people who don't like the evidence will still be a difficulty in trying to solve a problem that they are sure does not exist.
...that's the book, Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers, highlighted currently in our new bright and shiny "Book Club" - is because I've heard that his book, too, highlights some things we can begin to do about the situation...
So, as we draw this topic to a close (only formerly and only for now), I most certainly want to take this opportunity to point folks again to the site's new "Book Club" feature, where we're now all invited to delve into this topic together, a bit at a time, through Flannery's Wes-recommended book.
Oh, and they'll be plenty of champaign and donuts around, I'm sure - right, Carol???
Ah, and I think Flannery's book is now available at most libraries, so I hope the price of the book - and yes, those are certainly getting higher and higher these days, and I know I can afford very few now - won't inhibit folks from joining in the book club for this discussion, ;-). Folks can take their time, discussing as you read (no need to make it all the way through before becoming engaged). You'll be glad you did, I promise!
CO2 reduction efforts may need to be more aggressive not by 1 billion tons of CO2/yr per wedge, but possibly by 2+ billion tons of CO2/yr....
Not to diminish the importance of working towards the prinicples outlined above, these wedge options will likely be modified, since it's based on managing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel emissions, which average 6 billion tons of CO2/yr (6 GtC/yr), worldwide.
Yesterday, a new study revealed that vast carbon reservoirs now trapped in permafrost are twice the levels previously thought. The new estimate is now 500 Billion tons of CO2 (500 GtC/yr) in Siberia alone. This region is undergoing dramatic thawing. This amount excludes the vast levels of trapped carbon that exist in the Alaskan, Canadian and Nothern European tundra and permafrost regions...
None of the future climate models on global warming presented by climatoligists have accounted for this source for carbon.
see http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7058
My real fear is that we'll go whole hog on coal, oil sands, etc., and not bother to worry about the CO2.
urgency of the utmost order, not just for our nation, but the nations of the world, I can't begin to imagine the consequences...
via energybulletin
An Inconvenient Truth
by Amanda Kovattana (here's her blog)
As I surveyed the sellout crowd for the Saturday night showing of An Inconvenient Truth, I could see familiar faces dotted through the theater. I knew they were the forerunners - teachers, research scientists, health practitioners, environmentalists, Buddhists, organic gardeners. All week I had been getting e-mails from various groups urging me to attend this all important opening weekend, make this a blockbuster so it would open at more theaters. It gave the evening the feel of a film festival.
"I hope it has a happy ending," quipped one of my seatmates.
The movie was getting a lot of buzz on news shows. It was being discovered that Gore actually had a personality and was funny even. The man, who should have been president of the free world, was, now, a man with a message and he had been delivering it the old fashion way, in person from town to town. It wasn't until he got to LA that producers approached him to make a movie. But would this be the equivalent of giving Neil Armstrong an award in cinematography for his shaky cam footage of the moon? I mean how interesting could a slide show be?
What Al Gore's movie has done is tap into the satisfying joy of going to the lecture of a favorite professor. You know the ones. They get the highest student ranking and their classes are always well attended because something happens there. Something life changing that may just determine your choices for the rest of your days, become your guiding principles. For in order to take in this information about our planet in any meaningful way, it has to reach to our core; it has to become a moral journey.
And if that doesn't speak to you, it's just a good delivery of the science brought to life with visits to the research stations in Antarctica to look at core samples and room size diagrams with giant pulsing charts and explanatory animation. "Oh so that's how the ice breaks off a Titanic size chunk at a time". Gore had persuaded the Pentagon to release information about the thickness of the ice at the North Pole. He has gathered pictures showing receding ice all over the world then and now and precipitation patterns showing extreme rain and drought. No question the world was indeed warming due to extraordinary, never before seen levels of carbon.
What you won't find in this movie is an emotional outrage, charging all over the map Michael Moore style getting everyone riled up. Or as one of my disappointed activist friends said, it won't "rip people's hearts into action". But this is not the place for passion or outrage. Passion will not stay the course. What we needed is good steady information that will make it obvious we have no recourse, but to fix this. Science is at stake here.
I never thought I'd see the day when I would have to stick up for science, but we now have a devious layer of corporate-financed, pseudo-science spread all over everything like sticky jam. So much so that when we see something clean and pure without that sticky confusing mess, we think that something is missing.
When the movie was reviewed by Ebert and Roeper, both gave it a thumbs up with Ebert absolutely earnest about how important this film was, but then there was Roeper reluctantly giving it his blessing with the caveat that there was not enough balance in the film; he did not believe that humankind was the cause of this off the chart increase of carbon, resulting in worldwide climate chaos. This was just Gore's opinion, he said. Did he miss the bit about how all the peer-reviewed scientific reports on global warming had been surveyed and of the 928, not one had questioned that human impact was the cause?
The "it's not our fault, so we don't have to do anything about it", is the latest sticky, jammy "balanced" point of view. I have to wonder about people who can watch this tremendous oncoming disaster in the making and sit back and say it's not 100% proven that it's caused by us so there's no point in cutting our carbon emissions. Are they just going to be resigned to watching the world suffer devastating hurricanes and have possibly their own home flooded by rising sea levels?
I was discussing this strange willingness to sacrifice the planet for the sake of a balanced point of view with a friend teaching a course in applied biology to designers. She told me some of her students complained that there was not enough balance in her course because she had included environmental impact as a criteria for design through the entire course. It was puzzling to us why balance even came into the picture. Was this not why they had taken a science course? To inform them of the science of their decisions? Oh, but we want that other reality. The one on TV that says its okay to trash the environment because that's what industry has done all along and it would be more balanced of you to give us the same choice. I do not think this line of thinking can last long. It is too much of a disconnect.
The beauty of Al Gore's clear presentation of the science is that it makes it obvious that we must make the connection. It appeals to our rational mind. 'But it won't stop global warming' some have declared gloomily. It is disturbing to me that so many succumb to this outlook that nothing will come of anything. It's been bad for so long, they say, why would I, now, be so embarrassingly Pollyannaish? Why should I be the one to do something when so few others will? Why should I be so inconvenienced? "It won't work, it's not enough, it's too late", they whine.
What I can offer is what I learned from another crisis on these shores, the AIDS crisis. When death walked into my community, some 25 years ago, on the proud shoulders of a leather clad gay man leading the Pride Parade, this ringside seat offered me a close look at how an educated, well heeled, first world population would handle a life threatening crisis.
Discussions took place outside the community (and inside too) about how the lifestyle of gay men had brought this on, how they deserved it and there was no cure (so just lay down and die you pervert). This was the message of my twenties and I did, for many years, embody a party-now, nihilism about life, in defiance of this sentiment.
But then, as the years wore on and a noticeable number of men were surviving AIDS, a new wisdom surfaced. I read an article about these men in the gay press and embraced the three guiding principles found to increase their rate of survival. First, they had to come out, bear up to whatever reactions people would have about queers; it was far better than internalizing the hatred. Good, I had already made this decision and no one could make me take it back. Next they had to take an active interest in living a healthy life. To me, this health-positive concept extended to my relationship with the planet as well. And third and most important, they got involved with the community efforts giving assistance to those living with AIDS and raising awareness about AIDS. So rather than distance themselves from the crisis and the community deemed to be the source of the problem, they returned to it to give of themselves.
Originally uploaded by Flipped Out.
It was this active participation that intrigued me most. For it was not deemed enough to embody an attitude that would counter despair, one also had to participate in the activism of the disease, however futile it seemed. For without a doubt, many would die, but the chance to be involved with the dying, with the mortality of the problem, helped to improve the chance that more would survive.
What translates directly from the lessons of AIDS to today's planetary crisis, is that there was no way to know then, how many people would die of AIDS and if the community would be torn apart and disappear. So when people tell me that Al Gore's movie won't stop global warming, I have to ask why do you need such certainty in order to support the movie? Just to go is to participate in a collective attempt at consciousness raising and that is in itself powerful.
There is a scene in the movie that is easy to miss, but it holds a key to the path we must take. In this scene a research scientist is pulling out an ice core. The ice cores can be dated as precisely as tree rings. He points to a brownish part, after which the ice is clean again.
"There right there, is when the U.S. passed the clean air act in 1970".
It took me a moment to realize, hey Antarctica is a long way from the U.S. yet here we can see a definite change from one point to the next that is attributed to a policy change in this one country. No wonder everyone is waiting for the U.S. to wake up. And you cannot lay the blame on China. China has emission standards for cars sold in their country that will, in two years, exceed what we are aiming for here in California for the year 2016. So are automakers gearing up to make cars for the Chinese market? Perhaps they are (secretly), but meanwhile they are suing California to keep those emission standards at the low federal levels, presumably so they can continue to sell those ever popular, planet-busting behemoths that make them more money.
Gore and Clinton had tried to persuade Congress that they had to support Kyoto. That Congress did not was of extreme frustration to Gore. These supposed leaders will not lead; these Congressmen will not act, he explained, "unless something is on the tip of the tongue of every constituent". Gore has given us, with this movie, the means to make this an issue on the tip of the tongue of every constituent.
Okay so they may not be going to see it in Podunk whatever. But enough will see it, in progressive enough spots of the country, to change policy. People motivated to write a letter to their representative, a letter to the editor, call up a radio talk show or embarrass a TV reporter into listing global warming on their top ten list of national concerns. We are not going to reduce emissions with Prius sales alone (although that will certainly send a message to automakers). This is going to have to be written into our laws. Already the list of U.S. cities that have pledged to reduce carbon emissions fills a couple of pages. They have proven, too, that it makes economic sense.
See the movie. It won't stop global warming, but it is filled with 'aha' moments and vital statistics about the state of the planet. And you may just feel less inconvenienced about doing what needs to be done even if it just means talking about it to friends or taking somebody else to see it.
Take a few friends and/or a family member or two, or simply yourself, and go to see this movie. Help it to gain numbers in its ticket sales so that it continues to build momentum allowing it to open in still more theaters.
Forget about who's running or who's not - worrying about such things just ain't worth it... See the movie for the movie's sake alone... and help the content of the movie to spread...
All profits (100% of them), by the way, are going right back into further getting the word out about this issue.
This is something that just about any of us can do here and now...
Every bit helps. This is from the UCS:
===================================
Anyone Can Buy Clean Energy
June 2006
Read this issue of Greentips online
Most of our nation’s electricity is generated from dirty fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas that contribute to global warming and air and water pollution. Solar, wind, and other forms of renewable energy are a cleaner and more sustainable alternative that you can tap into—no matter where you live—by purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs).
What the Heck Is a REC?
Renewable energy generation creates two distinct products: electricity and the environmental attributes associated with the generation of that electricity, such as zero toxic pollution and global warming emissions. Because these attributes have value to people who want cleaner energy, they can be sold in the form of RECs (also known as tradable renewable certificates or green tags). One REC represents the environmental attributes of one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of renewable electricity.
Think of a REC as an investment in renewable energy. By purchasing RECs, you provide developers with additional revenue they can use to build new generating facilities. As renewable electricity flows into the power grid, it generally displaces fossil fuel-based electricity, so increased sales of RECs will keep more polluting electricity off the grid and contribute to a more sustainable power system.
Many utilities offer RECs as part of a “green power” program; call your local provider to find out whether it offers such a program. Even if it doesn’t, you can still obtain RECs through independent vendors (without having to switch from your current electricity provider).
Pricing
For the purposes of your household energy budget, consider RECs an add-on cost to your regular electricity bill, since REC pricing reflects the added cost of renewable electricity generation. The unit price can vary from 0.5 cent to more than 3.5 cents depending on the energy source and the location, generating capacity, and age of the generating facility.
RECs are generally sold in blocks of 100 to 500; most providers offer tools to help you determine how many blocks you should purchase to offset all or part of your household electricity use.
A “Green” Guarantee
Shop around and find a REC product that fits your budget and any specific needs you have in terms of the type of renewable energy you want to support. And make sure your green power purchase is truly sustainable by choosing RECs that have earned the Green-e seal shown here. Green-e is a voluntary certification program that protects consumers by verifying that renewable electricity products meet the program’s environmental standards.
Related Links
Union of Concerned Scientists—Green Power
U.S. Department of Energy—Renewable Energy Certificates
EPA—Green Power: Tags vs. Delivered Products (pdf)
From Scientific American
Trapping Carbon, Freeing Coal
There is a lot of carbon in the ground. For eons, life forms ranging from microbes to Homo sapiens have trapped the element as part of their fundamental molecular makeup, died and cycled it into the great geologic chain of carbon. Some of that carbon has been recycled into descendant organisms and soil, and some has been transformed by temperature, pressure and time into coal, natural gas and oil--the fuels of our modern economy. Keeping that carbon safely underground to fend off climate change is one of the current goals of modern industry and has given rise to a seeming oxymoron: clean coal. The idea is to burn the coal but capture the carbon that the burning produces and pump it back underground.
It sounds simple. But millions of dollars have been spent--with the promise of billions more--in the thus far vain pursuit of a technology that can capture a diffuse gas (carbon dioxide), concentrate it and render it suitable for transport. Now the R.E. Burger Plant in Shadyside, Ohio, stands on the threshold of becoming the first coal-fired power plant to test both the capture and storage of the leading greenhouse gas.
Mimuspolyglottis wrote an excellent diary at Kos today about using a solar oven, living in a sunny part of the country. It worth the read if you want to get a testimonial on someone who has good luck with getting tasty food from cooking this way. I'm thinking it should be a must for all local governments and agencies to have on hand for disasters as well as helping out with disasters overseas, like the dailly poverty issues people face all over the globe. Anyway, here's a link on where to buy a solar oven (small one for camping or the patio)
http://www.solarovens.org/sossport.html
via energybulletin.net - the person who sent it in considered it so good that she said it was better than the movie...
Gore on Charlie Rose for the full hour. He's definitely trying to get the word out... (He'll be on Letterman this Friday.)
Here's to us all...
LindaG
Well worth the time. And it was good to see Charlie Rose back on the air after having been ill for so long. I was afraid we were going to lose him. He's the best interviewer out there right now. He even asks questions!
It was an impressive airing in any case and Rose did not throw softballs at all. I thought Gore handled it well.
via energybulletin and Grist Magazine:
Jim Hansen in NY Review of BooksPosted by David Roberts at 11:09 AM on 20 Jun 2006
In the latest issue of the The New York Review of Books (not yet online here), legendary climate scientist Jim Hansen leaves behind the cozy confines of technical scientific writing and launches into the world of book review prose. He does remarkably well.
The books at issue are Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers, Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes From a Catastrophe, and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but Hansen mostly uses the books as a pretext to lay out the basic state of conventional wisdom on the climate issue, namely: Things are bad and getting worse, species are set to die out and sea levels are set to rise, we can either continue on with business as usual or set a new course, and we really should set a new course, because within 10 years we'll pass a point of no return. Regular Grist readers will find it all quite familiar, but Hansen does a nice job of presenting the information in a compact, dispassionate, and frightening form.
Perhaps more juicy, from a purely tabloidy perspective, are some nuggets about Gore and Hansen's relationship toward the end of the piece. To wit:
The reader might assume that I have long been close to Gore, since I testified before his Senate committee in 1989 and participated in scientific "roundtable" discussions in his Senate office. In fact, Gore was displeased when I declined to provide him with images of increasing drought generated by a computer model of climate change. (I didn't trust the model's estimates of precipitation.) After Clinton and Gore were elected, I declined a suggestion from the White House to write a rebuttal to a New York Times Op-Ed article that played down global warming and criticized the Vice President. I did not hear from Gore for more than a decade, until January of this year, when he asked me to critically assess his slide show. When we met, he said that he "wanted to apologize," but, without letting him explain what he was apologizing for, I said, "your insight was better than mine."
...
An Inconvenient Truth is about Gore himself as well as global warming. It shows the man that I met in the 1980s at scientific roundtable discussions, passionate and knowledgeable, true to the message he has delivered for years. It makes one wonder whether the American public has not been deceived by the distorted images of him that have been presented by the press and television. Perhaps the country came close to having the leadership it needed to deal with a grave threat to the planet, but did not realize it.
Good to see Hansen give Gore the credit for foresight that he deserves. Hopefully that sentiment will spread.
Here's to us all...
LindaG
I read that too. Great review.
I would like to note that as a biologist I have noticed a lot of incidental changes in my local area. While by themselves they don't mean much, when added to everything else they become part of the pattern. For one thing spring bulbs are two weeks early in blooming over the last 15 years and they are getting fewer blooms than before. If this keeps up I'll have to start putting the bulbs in the refrigerator (they need a certain period of cold weather). For another the turkey vultures return to our area about ten days to two weeks earlier in the spring. Finally we have not had a serious snow storm in years, although our average is several inches, if I recall right, and we once had over 20 inches in one winter.
Finally, I've run across a book in which the author purports to show that global warming is not happening (the author also states that HIV does not cause AIDS (in fact AIDS is not real- it is a scam to get us to send money to Africa), evolution did not happen, stem cell research is a fraud, does not harm wildlife, etc. I would not worry too much about such tripe, except that the book is selling very well! How do we combat willful ignorance?
i am curious. how much would the plan need to be changed if natural methan (ie from cows), forest/brush fires and volcano eruptions were taken into account? how much has natural greenhouse gas production added to the PPM over the years?
"On average in Canada, 2.6 million hectares of land are burned each year, releasing 34 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Emissions from such fires represent about 18 per cent of current Canadian carbon dioxide emissions."
18% is nothing to sneaze at. If there are even bigger fires the PPM will go up a great deal. How much C02 do plants eat?
How does this plan square with the energy plan the folks at Kos worked on with Jerome-a-Paris? I believe that was a question asked Wes on the Kos thread. They want to know what he thinks of their plan? Apparently Bill Richardson said he liked it while at YKos. How excellent to have people who will listen to the grassroots for these plans and not just digest what energy company lobbyists write, which if School House Rock were done today would have to be included in "how a bill is made."