It’s Getting Hot In Here

After scaling 45 stories with no ropes and no harnesses, a lot of things look easier — even solving climate change. When Alain Robert climbed the Four Seasons hotel in Hong Kong last week, he was telling the world that stopping climate change is possible, and simpler than we think, if we join together to take action! This building free climb by the French Spiderman, Alain Robert, was to raise awareness for climate change and the fact that The Solution is Simple (Alain’s website released on his shirt while climbing)! His site The Solution is Simple offers a call to action reminding the world that global warming is “the most urgent and important issue in our lifetime”.

Is that why he picked the Four Seasons (we want to keep all four!), an glass facade building in Hong Kong? Increasing the efficiency of the world’s buildings through green design in places like Hong Kong (and all over the world) will be a crucial part of the solution. And one that can start now! There’s no need or time to wait. Alain’s climb was to remind us all that there is no time to wait for governments to continue to talk about action. We need action before Copenhagen, showing not telling our politicians that The Solution is Simple. Alain’s solutions are simple:

1) Stop cutting down trees.

2) Make everything energy-efficient.

3) Only make clean energy.

Hey! How come some people can make everything look easy?!?

The World Health Organization estimates that 150,000 people die annually due to climate change related causes including in floods, droughts, and heat waves. It’s for this reason that the WHO chose to name World Health Day 2008 “Protecting our Health from Climate Change,” thus recognizing the fact that climate change will dramatically affect global health. World Health Day, celebrated on 7 April, involved some pretty splendid celebrations worldwide, including a straight-from-IGHIH rap for the Southeast Asian Regional Office of the WHO (see below for lyrics). Two days later - yesterday - the US celebrated with a presentation to Congress by Howard Frumkin, one of the directors for the Center for Disease Control, on the public health impacts of climate change. “CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern,” he said — but he still kept a lot under wraps.

Mr. Frumkin presented the fact that climate change will directly impact health in the United States, particularly the health of children and the elderly. He described the increase in droughts, heat waves, flooding, increased extreme weather events, and the spread of vectorborne diseases. Yet, in a move more worthy of Fossil Fool’s Day than World Health Day, he then did not comment on whether carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, was thus a public health threat. Instead, his cautious phrasing was: “To the science, there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas… and there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health.” Thanks, Frumkin!

The issue is, if Frumkin, the CDC, or the WHO do declare that because of the “strong evidence” connecting the simple dots, they would force the EPA to recognize that carbon dioxide IS a danger to public health, which would thus mean that the US EPA would be required to regulate it, according to a Supreme Court decision last year. But the EPA is stalling, saying that such a regulation would have major implications across sectors. Yeah! Exactly! This week, a coalition of states, led by Massachusetts, have brought this issue back to the US Court of Appeals, demanding that the EPA publish its findings related to emissions, after their 2003 claim that there remained “substantial scientific uncertainty” regarding the impacts of greenhouse gases. There wasn’t uncertainty then; there isn’t now. And as James Milkey, head of the environmental protection division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, said to NY Times reporters, “One year ago today, the court rejected E.P.A.’s claim that it lacks authority under existing law to regulate greenhouse gases. It has the duty to regulate, not just the authority.”

Continue reading ‘World Health Day: Raps & Under Wraps’

In another take on assumptions, Yale economists are questioning the assumptions the opponents to national climate policy are making when they claim that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will ruin the US economy. But most importantly, they’ve created a really sweet website where you can see for yourself - by making your own assumptions about consumer choices and economic development. Essentially, by analyzing 25 economic models and thousands of policy analyses, Robert Repetto and his team were able to identify seven key assumptions which accounted for 80 percent of the variability in conclusions about the economic impact of taking action on climate change.

Site visitors are able to quantify how much they agree with these major assumptions; the more likely you think they are, the more favorable the impact on the US economy would be. These include assumptions that reenwable energy technology will be available at stable or reduced costs over time, that a national policy will drive technological innovation, that reducing carbon emissions would have economic co-benefits, and that climate change would harm the US economy if US emissions are not reduced.

Repetto showed that even with the most pessimistic assumptions (that cost of renewables would increase as their use increases and technological innovation wouldn’t be affected by increasing costs of fossil fuels), the US economy would continue to grow at 2.4 percent, slightly less than previous average of 3 percent a year, on the way to 40 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 20 years. But if you take more favorable views of these assumptions, the US economy would grow even faster than without the 40 percent reductions in GHG emissions! But don’t take my word for it, see for yourself!

Okay, so maybe elementary school lessons about assumptions making asses out of you and me can’t hold true in the global climate debate, but a recent article in Nature does in fact call the IPCC to reflect on whether its assumptions are grossly underestimating the amount of policy innovation and technological change needed to stabilize our emissions. The authors, Roger Pielke, Jr, Tom Wigley and Christopher Green, argue that all of the IPCC scenarios incorporate far too much “spontaneous” improvements in energy technology and thus reductions in energy intensity. They conclude the article saying:

There is no question about whether technological innovation is necessary — it is. The question is, to what degree should policy focus directly on motivating such innovation? The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur.

While I remain optimistic about the potential for technological innovation to be driven by market demand and international creativity, the authors do point out that the IPCC is being “dangerously optimistic” by assuming that massive economic growth can occur in China and India while maintaining energy intensity. The article has received both major criticism and significant support from scientists around the world. While I’d agree with some critics that it’s still more important to find the ways to reduce energy intensity - whether spontaneously OR through policy - than to argue about where they’re coming from, the article reminds us that the policy and technological challenges are enormous and global leaders need to consider how to enable and encourage this change.

The IPCC assumptions that are the basis of international and national policies around the world are incorporating not only technological advancement, but changes in policy. The question in my mind is not whether or not they are accurate, but how we can actually get there. How can we make these assumptions of “spontaneous” change actually happen!? Much of this “spontaneous” change will not actually be spontaneous. It will take the conscious decisions of scientists, engineers, policy-makers, and all individuals.

Continue reading ‘What Did We Learn About Assumptions?’

The tradition of giving up something very important, very difficult to live without, during the Lenten season has been a part of the Christian faith for centuries. While this has had many interpretations through the centuries, this year, a few Bishops recognized something equally hard as food for many people to live without. No, not chocolate. Nor coffee. Carbon.

This year, the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, and the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, were asked members of his parish and Christians world wide to go on a Carbon Fast for Lent. For most parishioners, this boils down to a carbon diet, but Bishops Jones and Chartres were really asking for deep changes – changes that would allow for reflection “on God’s earth and its poorest people” and how both would be affected by climate change. Church groups and secular groups of individuals around the US, UK and around the world are joining in for the carbon fast. Today’s the halfway point, so a chance to reflect on reflecting… Continue reading ‘Carbon Fast for Lent’

In addition to making headlines on the first day of Bali by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and putting pressure on the US to do the same, Australia’s been making scientific headlines for a different kind of progress… Helping cows and other livestock become methane-free! First Rudd’s success, now ‘roos…

Globally, emissions from livestock are estimated to be 28 percent of “manmade” greenhouse gas emissions! Japanese researchers calculated that the production of each kilogram of beef had an average greenhouse impact of 80 pounds of CO2. But its not just meat — though global demand for red meat is increasing annually — its also the production of leather, dairy products, goat cheese, and wool. And while agricultural energetics and the benefits of eating locally might not rationalize the entire world giving up all animal products cold turkey, reducing the global GHG impact of lifestock would be a great improvement.

British researchers have proposed changing the grasses fed to cows in order to reduce methane production, as grasses with higher levels of sugar allow the bacteria within a cow’s stomach to process food more efficiently into energy, while producing less methane. Meanwhile, the Swiss Ruminant Nutrition Group has discovered that diets rich in plant fats (from sunflower seeds or flaxeed) as well as tannins and saponins, make it possible “to reduce the emission of methane up to 20 percent,” according to Professor Kreuzer at ETH Zurich. But saponins taste soapy and tannins are bitter for cows, and such food additives don’t address grass-based pasture farming.Researchers in Wales have started feeding cows increased amounts of garlic, which can decrease the amount of methane produced by cows by up to 50 percent, but certainly doesn’t improve cow-breath, and is actually illegal in Switzerland (because of the garlic taste that ends up in the milk and meet). Other researchers have proposed giving cows pills filled with methane-reducing chemicals that would have the same effect as garlic, with less impact on taste (though even more chemicals and chemical processing).

But Australia is proposing another solution — kangaroos! Methane produced from cattle farming contributes 15 percent of Australia’s emissions and in New Zealand, livestock methane is responsible for closer to 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. But while grazing on the same grasses (and without eating garlic) kangaroos produce no methane at all, because of the particular bacteria found in their stomachs that produce acetate instead.

While some kangaroo farmers are hoping the world will switch over to ‘roo sausages (and sweaters?), scientists like Athol Klieve, a Queensland research scientist, are trying to isolate those bacteria and move them into cow stomachs. This would make cows produce less methane AND harness more of the energy from the food they eat! While this might be a few years down the research track, the new reports from Queensland are generating a lot of excitement (not to mention flatulence jokes).

Meanwhile, as long as cows are producing methane, we may as well be using it! There are many projects to capture the methane from cattle farming operations (as well as sewers…) and use it to generate clean, cow-powered energy. And cow stomachs might offer a few solutions of their own — scientists have been able to use the non-methanic bacteria from cow stomachs to run microbial fuel cells!

While its totally clear, amazing and wonderful that Bali is bringing nations, regions, and great ideas together, I am sad to see that our generation’s success in international cooperation may not be paralleled by similar progress in the debating chambers. While Grist’s “Blowguns in Bali” was humorously addressing the major issues and conflicts to be addressed in Bali, the subtitle to the article, saying that many nations’ “defenses are up” during the first days of the CoP, became chilling when read in the perspective of Indian newspapers’ coverage of Bali.The Times of India made Bali sound like an island war zone, while describing the “climate meet”:

At Bali, where 190 countries are debating on how to safeguard the future of the Earth, India finds itself under siege. But battling for its right to development, India has found its best friends across the borders - China and Pakistan… For the developing world, India’s battle is to push the idea of per capita emissions as a unit of measurement.

Its true that the idea of using per capita emissions vs. total national or global emissions as an indicator will be a major point of contention between developing and developed countries.But isn’t there a middle ground? Room for both? The whole shared but differentiated responsibility idea? Continue reading ‘Viewing the “Battle” From a Homefront’

To end a year that watched Google install the largest corporate solar installation in the United States, give $1 million in grants (and commit $10 million more) to accelerate the development of plug-in hybrid technology, and commit to climate neutrality for global operations from 2007 on, Google has launched its biggest and most ambitious plan yet: a strategic initiative to make renewable energy cheaper than coal.

The RE<C initiative’s goal is to produce 1 GW (enough electricity to power San Francisco!) of renewable energy at lower cost than electricity from coal. This project will bring Google’s corporate and philanthropic arms together, while also partnering with other companies, R&D laboratories, universities, and a Google research team of energy engineers, analysts, entrepreneurs, and economists. The initial focus will be making breakthroughs in solar thermal, geothermal, and wind technology to increase efficiency and lower cost. In 2008, they plan to invest tens of millions of dollars in RE<C, with even greater investment (and even greater returns) in the future.

Larry Page, Google Co-founder and President of Products, explained why Google’s becoming a green energy R&D company, saying, “We have gained expertise in designing and building large-scale, energy-intensive facilities by building efficient data centers. We want to apply the same creativity and innovation to the challenge of generating renewable electricity at globally significant scale, and produce it cheaper than from coal.” Google has set the standard for corporate greening (read on for more examples), and the RE<C initiative could spur incredible future investment and RE development.

Continue reading ‘Google’s Biggest Search Yet: Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal’

Last week, while talking with a group of high school students in Delhi about climate change, it came out that I am really excited about making our built environment green. After talking about green buildings for a few minutes, two 11th grade girls came up to ask “Why do we have to make them green? Can’t we use any other color?” While I laughed and explained about all the other ways to make things green than by painting them, it did get me thinking…

I thought of Thomas Friedman’s movie and articles about making green the new red, white and blue. Green is patriotic - and why shouldn’t our red states and blue states all be green states?

I also thought about Solitaire Townsend, one of the best speakers I’ve ever seen talk about communicating climate change. She, and her company Futerra, are working to make green pink, that is, making sustainability cool, fun and optimistic.

And today, in Delhi’s winter smog and constant particulate fog, I thought that going green means we can keep the blue, too. The science says the air has really improved since the government mandated CNG in all buses and autorickshaws, but I can’t imagine a less blue sky, or what it will look like if 1,000 cars continue to be added to Delhi’s roads each week.

There are so many colors of green,  so I’m just wondering what color is your green? Continue reading ‘What Color is Green For You?’

As the death toll and displacement from Bangladesh’s Cyclone Sidr continues to rise and more island nations are threatened by . As Josh wrote on the 2 year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, there are still 30,000 people displaced from Hurricane Katrina, now living all over the US, many waiting for homes to be rebuilt or wondering if it is really safe to return. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report made clear that sea level rise will be much higher than originally projected (at least 1 meter from thermal expansion alone and potentially 6 to 7 meters with collapse of ice sheets in Greenland and the West Antarctic), with significant rises this century! But climate refugees will not only be migrating from our coastal areas or island nations.

Today, at a climate dialogue in Delhi, the city’s Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit and IPCC Chairman RK Pachauri presented another perspective. Already Delhi has immigration of .5 million people every year, to a city whose infrastructure and natural resources are already taxed by the current population of almost 16 million. Pachauri emphasized that the migration of villagers to Delhi would certainly increase as agricultural livelihoods become harder to support. With increasing droughts and increasing floods, the rainfed agriculture that supports millions of India’s population will be severely threatened. Pachauri asked: “Where will these poor farmers go?” answering that the movement of these climate-displaced would continue to accelerate the process of urbanization already so rapid in India.

I look forward to sharing more ideas that came out of today’s talk about the role of cities in addressing climate change, but I wanted to share the idea of climamigration. Millions will be displaced by climate change not only directly but indirectly as well, and I doubt if our world’s cities and countries are prepared or even beginning to prepare for this influx. As the US presidential candidates debate immigration policy and climate change, I wonder if they should not be considering them simultaneously? What responsibility does the US have to provide homes to climate refugees, displaced by the results of our nation’s historical emissions?