Quote of the Day

Happy Friday to all the energetic people out there. Today's QOTD comes from Andrew Revkin at DotEarth.

In fact, in the broadest sense we have to embrace the characteristics, good and bad, that make humans such a rare thing — a species that has become a planet-scale force. Cyanobacteria also were a planet-scale force, oxygenating the atmosphere some two billion years ago. The difference is that cyanobacteria weren’t aware of their potency, while we are at least starting to absorb that reality.

Revkin's continuous dialogue on the global permeation of human activity and the interconnectedness of energy, climate and ecological systems is well worth following.

Uncertainty or Definitiveness in Climate Science?

Two new studies, published in Nature (subscription required), find a link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather events. At least, that's what I keep hearing. But something else is happening here, beyond the humans-are-changing-the-climate narrative. Behind the boilerplate conclusions offered by the two studies, and in the context of climate-fueled extreme weather research in general, is an interesting discussion of the value and validity of such specific scientific findings to policymakers and the general public.

As The New York Times reports:

In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

The two studies each used climate modeling to predict the likelihood of observing discrete precipitation levels that, according to their findings, were impossible without the contribution of human-influenced atmospheric moisture content. The first study (Min, Zhang, Zwiers, and Hegerl) analyzed global rainfall over a fifty-year period (1951-1999) and used climate simulations to calculate the effect of increased GHG levels in the atmosphere on precipitation. The second (Pall, Aina, Stone, Stott, Nozawa, Hilberts, Lohmann, and Allen) established causal relationship, using climate simulations, between emissions and a unique extreme weather event (specifically, a flood in England in 2000).

The context for the two respective papers is important. The conclusion offered by the Min et al. indicates that climate change is both happening and having an effect on macro-scale phenomena, specifically global precipitation preceding extreme weather events. The paper by Pall and colleagues ostensibly asserts that we can identify a climate "fingerprint" in specific extreme weather events, indicting humankind for its increasing frequency.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress used the evidence put forward by these two studies in saying that "key weather events are becoming more extreme — especially deluges, heat waves, and droughts — as climate scientists have long predicted they would if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases kept rising." He is referring here to the conventional wisdom in climate change research that, while we anticipate increasing and intensifying climatological extremes associated with anthropogenic emissions, no single weather event can be attributed to the effects of climate change. Climate Progress (which, incidentally, censored me just last week) seems to have put this conventional wisdom to rest.

Not so fast, say others. Over at his blog, Roger Pielke Jr. provides the following contribution to this discussion:

I have been asked by many people whether these papers mean that we can now attribute some fraction of the global trend in disaster losses to greenhouse gas emissions, or even recent disasters such as in Pakistan and Australia.

I hate to pour cold water on a really good media frenzy, but the answer is "no." Neither paper actually discusses global trends in disasters (one doesn't even discuss floods) or even individual events beyond a single flood event in the UK in 2000.

Pielke notes that the Min et al. paper discusses precipitation only, omitting any data on streamflow or damage. On this, he says,

Precipitation is to flood damage as wind is to windstorm damage. It is not enough to say that it has become windier to make a connection to increased windstorm damage -- you need to show a specific increase in those specific wind events that actually cause damage. There are a lot of days that could be windier with no increase in damage; the same goes for precipitation.

Further, Pielke criticizes the Pall et al. paper for drawing conclusions on extreme weather trends in a study with an overly narrow focus on a single weather event. The data, Pielke suggests, don't add up to such a compelling conclusion as has been reported.

Perhaps the most interesting dynamic at play here is what Pielke referred to as "a really good media frenzy." Andrew Revkin at DotEarth has probably the best compilation of opinion and fact surrounding this story, and he uses these two studies to discuss the interplay between scientists and journalists. Specifically, Revkin reminds us, climate science does not tend to lend itself to soundbites and easy conclusions:

As I wrote recently, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the definitiveness of an assertion and its credibility. This doesn’t mean that everything definitive is wrong (only Joe Romm could find a way to interpret it thus). It means that a reporter, or citizen, confronted with a flat statement on a tough issue would do well to dig a bit deeper.

Reporting on the issues, and making policy in response to them, becomes that much more difficult because of the simplistic diagnostics many of us seek. This is the key trouble with climate science, in my view. Science and journalism very often present us with definitive climate predictions, and when credible non-deniers like Pielke chime in with data-driven skepticism, the zeitgeist of climate change as a whole suffers in the public arena. The trouble with trying to solve the climate crisis by using climate disasters as harbingers is that we have yet to accurately predict in advance or attribute in retrospect any direct culpability to anthropogenic emissions in high-profile weather events. Thus, insofar as climate change is a technical challenge with a technical solution, it is extremely difficult to define the parameters which we seek to address.

These two studies, and the reporting on them, are examples of how messy the arena of public discourse can get without even inviting the flat-earthers who refuse to entertain the notion that climate change might just possibly be a bad thing. It is for this reason primarily that I (taking a cue from Revkin) like to frame the challenges we face as an energy quest, for which the technical challenges posed are far more simple to diagnose, even if they are just as daunting.

Chunks: A(nother) New Approach to Energy Policy?

Cross-posted at WattHead - Energy News and Commentary and the Americans for Energy Leadership Blog.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, President Obama addressed the failed climate/energy attempt of this summer, promising to move forward with a reinvigorated agenda in 2011. However, any such action will likely bear little resemblance to previous attempts. Mr. Obama conceded that "we may have to end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive legislation." If this is indeed going to be the form of a new course of action on climate/energy for Mr. Obama, commentators are beginning to wonder exactly what those "chunks" will be.

Never mind the fact that the most recent attempts at energy reform have been piece-meal to begin with--that's more or less inevitable with so many regulations, markets, fuels, interest groups and players at stake. Before its total dismantling, the American Power Act (formerly Kerry-Graham-Lieberman) was a hodge-podge of cap-and-trade, tax incentives and subsidies for renewables and clean coal technology, loan guarantees for next-generation nuclear power production, and a slew of regulatory reforms to preempt state action of GHGs and promote energy efficiency. Of course that bill never came close to a floor vote in the Senate, but my point stands: a "comprehensive" bill would have to be built one brick at a time anyway, so maybe Obama's explicit "chunks" approach will get the job done.

So what's on the table this time around? And, more importantly, what can pass a divided Congress?

Glenn Hurowitz at Grist proposes his favorite chunks in his "Peanut Butter Plan." He advocates a combination of tax credits for carbon capture; regulations to reduce black carbon pollution; intensifying regulations banning HFCs; and international finance to help LDCs adapt to climate change. Hurowitz refers to these four as "low-hanging fruit" solutions, and believes that if combined properly they could achieve greater emissions reductions than more comprehensive legislation.

Andrew Revkin kick-started a similar discussion over at DotEarth, putting forward a couple of his favorite policy chunks to replace a larger bill. He credits Hurowitz's list, and adds making the R&D tax credit permanent and the RE-ENERGYSE program to the list. If anything, Mr. Revkin's recommendations are more comprehensive than "chunky," as he puts it. Rather than approaching certain piece-meal aspects of climate/energy one at a time, Revkin's suggestions create policy infrastructure for energy innovation and energy education at large. Instead of writing different legislation for solar, wind, CCS, nuclear, EE, carbon finance, and emissions regulations (to name a few), funding for innovation and education create the foundations of a workable and flexible industrial policy on energy.

I'm a fan of piece-meal, and I'm a fan of big picture. But the problems will arise, as usual, with the politics. As Senator Jay Rockefeller said, "We [the Senate] tend not to be very good at chunks, but then you could argue that we tend not to be very good at big things either." Bonus points for honesty. However, a recent piece in Politico might forecast some political leeway for the President as he moves forward with a chunks approach. The article cites Senators Brown (R-MA), Alexander (R-TN), and Snowe (R-ME) as potential allies on a chunky approach, in addition to Democrats like Rockefeller, John Kerry and Dick Durbin.

A quick aside on the politics. Much has been said that, if Republicans have been so unwilling to cooperate thusfar with the Obama Administration, what makes us think that the chances for climate/energy legislation will be higher in 2011, when Republicans will certainly have more seats in both Houses? To the naysayers, I offer my cautious optimism that Republicans will accept their increased share in political power as an opportunity to shake off the still trenchant "Party of No" vision that many voters have adopted for them. Beating Democrats in Midterms is one thing; beating a still reasonably popular President in 2012 without a legitimate Republican frontrunner will take more than straight obstruction. Time will tell.

But I digress. What would I add to the chunky climate agenda? Well, I appreciate the efforts of individual members of Congress to promote clean coal, nuclear, renewables, energy efficiency, biofuels and other fuel-focused policies. However, I would add my name Mr. Revkin's endorsement of research and innovation before partitioning climate/energy policy into too many segments. In addition to increasing cleantech R&D funding to at least $15 billion annually and re-investing in science and engineering education, we should expand the scope of DoE's ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, and create public private partnerships with similar goals of targeting and funding specific energy technology projects for demonstration and deployment.

Like extending the research tax credit and RE-ENERGYSE, these proposals are less chunky and have received proportionately lower attention in Congress. However, policy and business leaders from the Brookings Institution and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation to the American Energy Innovation Council and the Breakthrough Institute have all advocated similar approaches to our energy challenges. I've consistently added my voice to these calls to actions here and with Americans for Energy Leadership, who have done excellent work on the RE-ENERGYSE proposal in particular.

At the end of the day, we need a strong energy agenda, one way or another. But looking past the chunks, we must keep pushing for a policy infrastructure built on education, research and innovation, without which such piece-meal approaches may not be able to form an effective climate/energy agenda.

Mixed signals from the White House on clean energy investment

Cross-posted on WattHead - Energy News and Commentary

President Obama has been touring the nation, touting his administration's efforts to expand federal investment in clean tech manufacturing. At each stop, clean energy jobs are the major topic of discussion, with international economic competition and environmental goals somewhere on the edges of his stump speech.

At ZBB Energy in Wisconsin, a battery and renewables storage producer, Obama heralded the $1.3 million in federal stimulus dollars invested in the company while calling for 800,000 new clean energy jobs by 2012. On a fundraising trek for Governor Ted Strickland through Toldeo, Ohio, the President applauded local renewables manufacturing, saying, "There is a whole series of huge potential manufacturing industries in which we end up being world leaders and, as a bonus, end up creating a more energy-efficient economy that is also good for the environment." And, at a DCCC fundraiser in Hollywood, the President recounted the imperative of reducing carbon emissions "because we want those clean energy jobs built here in the United States, not in China, not in Germany."

In the meantime, however, critics are taking note of disturbing signals from the White House on clean energy investment. Jesse Jenkins of WattHead and the Breakthrough Institute pointed out yesterday that "a number of (as yet unfulfilled) energy and environmental policy pledges have been removed from the WhiteHouse.gov page in recent weeks." Among the dropped pledges is the President's commitment to invest $150 billion over ten years in clean tech R&D. This follows months of inaction from the President on a comprehensive climate and energy bill, the American Power Act. What remains of that bill is now floundering in Congress without the inclusion of any cap on carbon emissions, environmentalists' dream policy goal for creating a clean energy economy that was thoroughly demolished during the summer.

As Andrew Revkin points out, the recently missing $150 billion in clean tech R&D may be the result of the failure of cap-and-trade to pass the Senate, leaving the White House's assumed funding source for the investment dead in the water. But the source shouldn't matter as much as the policy goal itself; expert energy organizations from the IEA to the AEIC and dozens of Nobel Laureates have called for significant increases in energy technology R&D, on the order of $15-30 billion annually to keep pace with the required rate of decarbonization and to compete with other nations on similar paths.

We can only hope that such mixed signals on energy policy do not become standard operating procedure for the Obama White House. The President's recent (and encouraging) repeated calls for clean tech manufacturing investment may be signs of his attempt to make amends for relative idleness on the climate bill. And perhaps some leeway may be given in anticipation of the November midterm elections, which by many accounts will be some degree of devastating to the President's party. But, fingers-crossed, by the new year the President needs to have developed a powerful and sustained message for decarbonization and clean tech, and the time for broken promises and mixed signals will be over.

As part of a non-emotional response to the BP oil spill, and in anticipation of a $600 billion clean energy industry projected for 2020, Obama must direct the power of his office towards energy competitiveness the way he did with health care last year. Some Republicans have already indicated a willingness to work with Democrats on clean tech, and this effort could mark the first time in his presidency that Obama can successfully unite the parties towards a common policy. But, politics aside, the United States can't afford to sit on the bench any longer.

Cap-and-FAIL Roundup

A lot of smart people were less than thrilled following yesterday's slow and brutal bludgeoning of anything resembling good energy policy. Here are a few choice reactions:

• Andrew Revkin (NYTimes Dot Earth blog): "Obama has failed to challenge fossilized foes of meaningful action on energy and climate change, from Senator James Inhofe to the many conservative columnists - along with some liberals - who've distorted the American discourse on climate into an either-or debate over beliefs little different than that on abortion or gun rights."
• Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey (Huffington Post): "Cap and trade has repeatedly failed because it doesn't address the main barrier to the widespread deployment of clean energy technologies: the technology-based price gap between new clean energy and mature fossil fuels."
• Kate Sheppard (Mother Jones): "Obviously, there's no carbon cap, that much we already knew. But there's also no other major energy efficiency standards, and, perhaps most importantly, no renewable electricity standard - not even the weak one included in the energy bill last year.
• Michael Noble (Fresh Energy blog): "The President must do more than talk about energy. He needs to force action in the Senate by convening the kind of public conversation only the President can drive."
• David Roberts (Grist): "Big Coal is in trouble. Sooner or later, the industry will realize that the funding it can get from cap-and-trade, to support carbon capture and sequestration, is the only path to survival... By 2012, certainly by 2015 when many of the [EPA CO2 regulations] kick in, the industry will be forced to acknowledge this basic truth."
• Joe Klein (TIME): "Next year, the Environmental Protection Agency will begin regulating the hell out of CO2. The business community won't like that, nor will many Republicans."

Someone please tell Paul Krugman about the energy quest

I like Paul Krugman. I realize that quality alone does not make me a very unique progressive. I have always relied on and been fascinated by his lessons on liberal economics (book: The Conscience of a Liberal) and went directly to him for health care analysis over the past 14 months. And I am certainly a fan of how, now that health care is over (for the time being), he seems to be directing his attention to climate change. The addition of such a popular and influential liberal voice - Nobel prize winner, New York Times columnist, brilliant writer - is encouraging in the debate over climate and energy policy.

But he has some catching up to do.

Yesterday many of us read Krugman's exhaustive piece, "Building a Green Economy," on climate economics for The New York Times Magazine. In it, he correctly diagnoses the carbon pollution problem as a Pigouvian effluence, and he speaks eloquently about the role governments can play in mitigating market uncertainty with effective and clear policies. He spells out the traditional debate over a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme, and comes down on the side of quick, aggressive government action as opposed to a "ramp-up" strategy. To skeptics he offers "the non-negligible possibility of disaster" and notes the successful precedent of the sulfur dioxide cap™ program. These are all fairly astute observations for anyone outside the environmental economics field; to those within, they are classics. But again, it is good to have Mr. Krugman on our side.

However, Krugman's prescription for fixing the pollution problem falls far short of what I, and others, consider sufficient. He overestimates the efficacy of the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last summer, and he overemphasizes the relatively minor mechanism of cap™ in any climate/energy bill. While I fully support a price on carbon, whether by carbon tax or cap-and-trade, I recognize that at some point such a policy simply acts to punish consumers for being involuntary members in the ubiquitous carbon economy they were born into. Over at his blog, Roger Pielke Jr. takes Mr. Krugman to task far more scathingly than I have:

Absent from Krugman's discussion is any discussion of energy technology (other than to disparage it) in favor of an almost mystical confidence in the magical effectiveness of the market to lead to conservation. Guess what? We cannot decarbonize the U.S. economy based on "conservation." To suggest otherwise is a pretty clear sign that one really doesn't understand the nature of the challenge.

The replacement of the carbon economy with the clean energy economy will take more than emissions reductions - it will require the unbridled innovation and research that earned us the space program, the Internet and the personal computer. Mr. Krugman offers the world to choose between a minor economic deceleration and climate catastrophe. What we should be choosing is between carbon and clean tech; between old technology and new prosperity; between economic wardship for the United States or technological competitiveness with emerging economies. That is how we must frame the question - not as a lesser of two evils, but as a quest for better, cheaper, more abundant and cleaner energy technology.

As it turns out, someone else at the New York Times is fully aware of this. In his blog Dot Earth, Andy Revkin's recent post "On the Energy Gap and Climate Crisis" puts together a much more comprehensive and effective narrative for our energy problems:

...if I had to choose one of two bumper stickers for our car - climate crisis or energy quest - I'd choose the latter. This doesn't mean I reject the idea that we face a climate crisis. I just don't think that phrase is a productive way to frame the challenge, particularly as defined over the last few years in the heated policy debate.

Paul Krugman, and many others, could benefit from Mr. Revkin's analysis. We cannot scare ourselves into solving the climate crisis, but we can rise to the challenge of constructing a clean energy economy - a possible future that will strengthen our energy security, mitigate energy poverty, increase consumer choice, decentralize our power production, and clean up our environment, both terrestrial and atmospheric. There is a bright future on the horizon, and the path to that future is our energy quest.

A Climb Up the Heat Ladder

Andy Revkin has a great little piece on the sociology of energy use in the NYTimes [scrip required]. Worth checking out the whole (short) article, but here's the key passage:

Human progress, Loren Eiseley wrote in 1954, has largely been a climb up “the heat ladder” from one energy source to the next. Each has been more convenient or potent or economical than the last. No one lugs firewood to warm a high-rise apartment building in Chicago.

But the climb has stalled. The potential of the atom has been sharply limited by safety and security questions and fusion’s persistent hurdles. Sunlight, identified as far back as Thomas Edison’s time as the ultimate energy source, is still costly to transform into electricity on a large scale.

As a result, 21st-century civilization is still stuck on a 19th-century rung — the coal step on that heat ladder — while two billion people in Africa and other struggling regions still cook meals on smoldering dung and sticks, with a million-plus dying young each year from lung ailments as a result. Many in such places would love nothing more than a lump of coal.

And now science says we can’t afford to stay where we are much longer.

***

Eisley's "heat ladder" provides us with a very effective metaphor for the ecological history of our species, quite literally from the advent of fire all the way up to nuclear power. Where I differ from Revkin, however, is my view of solar (+wind, tidal, etc.) as energy extracted from an entirely different, and much more basic, ladder. Instead of solar energy being processed by photosynthesis into combustible material, the ladder on which these renewables rest interrupts that chain of events by transforming solar energy directly. Tidal and wind energy can by understood similarly--we are capturing existing forms of energy only recently available because of human technology. The goal should not be to move higher up the ladder, but to climb up a different one--one that does not require we burn anything to get our energy.