All posts by Craig Miller

Craig is a former KQED Science editor, specializing in weather, climate, water & energy issues, with a little seismology thrown in just to shake things up. Prior to that, he launched and led the station's award-winning multimedia project, Climate Watch. Craig is also an accomplished writer/producer of television documentaries, with a focus on natural resource issues.
Government & Business

National Cap-and-Trade Program Unveiled

2 Comments

California’s largest electric utility joined with a coalition of about 30 other companies and environmental groups today, in taking the wraps off a proposed national climate strategy. After two years of talks, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which includes PG&E, is ready to put its muscle behind it’s Blueprint for Legislative Action, just in time for Inauguration Day.

The program uses a trading program for carbon credits, much like the Western Climate Initiative, a collaboration of several western states and Canadian provinces. The goal is to roll back greenhouse gas emissions to:

> 97%‐102% of 2005 levels by 2012
> 80%‐86% of 2005 levels by 2020
> 58% of 2005 levels by 2030
> 20% of 2005 levels by 2050

While stated a little differently here, the targets reflect what has become the broadly accepted goal of cutting GHGs 80% by 2050.

A thorny question surrounding carbon trading programs is always whether pollution credits will be auctioned off or given away free to major emitters. According to the group’s “blueprint:”

“USCAP recommends that a significant portion of allowances should be initially distributed free to
capped entities and economic sectors particularly disadvantaged by the secondary price effects of a
cap and that free distribution of allowances be phased out over time.”

This would appear to conflict with the stated goals of the Western Climate Initiative, whose representatives have committed (at least verbally) to making companies pay for most credits up front. And yet the USCAP plan carries the endorsement of major environmental organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and the NRDC, both of which are members.

As one corporate executive put it at the plan’s unveiling, “We simply think you have to give away a significant portion…and then phase them out over time.”

The USCAP plan also offers emitters the chance to buy approved carbon offsets and gives special allowances to companies that have already achieved verifiable reductions in GHG emissions–or plan to do so.

Government & Business, Water

New Blueprint for California Water Use

img_3449.JPGCalifornia’s Dept. of Water Resources has issued a new gameplan for managing the state’s precarious water supply. DWR calls its draft California Water Plan “a new chapter in the way California must manage her water resources,” warning that “the system has lost its reslience.”

The agency appears to fully recognize the impact of climate change in assessing the challenges ahead. In its conclusion, the draft plan says:

“Population is growing while available water supplies are static and even decreasing. Climate change, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, river flows and sea levels, is profoundly impacting our water resources.”

Note that the report doesn’t say that climate change “may be” affecting water resources, it says that it is already. The plan also recognizes for the first time, that water and flood management need to be part of the same process, and that there has to be a coordinated, long-term strategy for investing in California’s water system:

“…funds from bond-to-bond are neither sufficient nor sustainable. California needs more stable and continuous sources of revenue to invest in statewide and regional integrated water management and the build resilience back into the state’s water and flood management systems, as well as into the watersheds, groundwater basins, and ecosystems that support them.”

The “public review draft” released today provides a good piece of perspective when it notes that while the current drought seems comparable to the 1977 dry spell, the state’s population is nearly 75% larger now.

The draft catalogs 27 potential strategies for managing the state’s water. Much of the report reiterates well established positions at DWR, such as the call for more (surface) water storage and a peripheral canal for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Photo: A nearly dry reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Uncategorized

Bay Area Greenhouse Gases on the Rise

trafficjam_sm.jpgThe Bay Area Air Quality Management District has issued a new inventory of greenhouse gas sources, updating a report issued last year, for “base year 2002.” (Yes, the 2006 report was for 2002–let me know if that’s not confusing enough).

If you thought the heavy hitters were those half-dozen or so big, smelly oil refineries strung out between Richmond and Antioch, guess again. If you’re going for your climate geek merit badge, you’ll know that here in California, at least, the transportation sector is the reigning CO2 champ.

According to the updated report, transportation accounts for about 40% of emissions. Non-farm industrial & commercial emissions (from stationary sources) weigh in at 34%. Amaze your friends! If you take that transportation sector and break it down further, it turns out that cars and light-duty trucks account for almost 64% of those mobile emissions.

Okay, so you know all that. But what jumps out of the report are the projections of emissions through 2029, which the Air District arrived at by blending current levels with projected population and economic growth. The trend is not only upward but steeply upward, from 104 million metric tons (CO2 equivalent) to 128 million by 2020 and 150 million by 2029, an increase of 44% in two decades.

But good gravy, how can that be? Isn’t California “leading the way” in greenhouse gas reductions? Well, yes and no. Henry Hilken, Director of Planning and Research for the district, explained that because most of the state’s aggressive mitigation programs are not yet in place, his number crunchers did not take them into account in their calculations. In other words AB-32, cap-and-trade, the so-called Pavley regulations on tailpipe emissions, the low-carbon fuel standard–none of it is actually happening yet. The projections represent a future based on “business-as-usual.”

That’s likely to change, however. State regulators have been virtually assured that they’ll get the required EPA waiver to put stricter tailpipe regulations in place, shortly after President-elect Obama takes office, to use just one example. For more on this issue, listen to Sasha Khokha’s feature from The California Report, earlier this week. On the other side of the ledger, full implementation of AB-32 remains in question, as the funding mechanism is not fully in place.

How much would the picture change with all those–or even some of those measures in place? Hilken says he hasn’t attempted those calculations. It’s also likely that a long, deep recession could put a kink in the emissions trend. So while you can argue that the numbers in the inventory are a weak predictor of things to come, they are a useful snapshot of where we are–and a sobering assessment of where we’ll end up without an aggressive climate policy.

The Air District report tracks two types of carbon dioxide (CO2), along with methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and a handful of lesser-known gases. The non-CO2 emissions are converted mathematically to “CO2-equivalent” values.

Government & Business

Global Warming a Tough Sell this Winter

10 Comments

October snow in upstate NYI believe they call it “the tyranny of the present.” This is the season of solidarity for climate change contrarians and global warming skeptics.

Take my brother, Chuck, who’s been digging out of his driveway in upstate New York non-stop since Halloween. After powering down the snow blower, Chuck recently explained to me that all this global warming hoopla is a conspiracy to redistribute American wealth to developing nations, under the auspices of the U.N. (which just happens to put out all those horrifying projections about climate change run amok–coincidence? You decide).

Climate change skeptics like Chuck have a lot of support for their views when the plow goes by and throws up a 6-foot wall of snow in front of their driveways and CNN switches from O.J. to avalanche coverage. Rush Limbaugh weighs in on their behalf. They even have their own convention, scheduled for March in New York. Then to cap it all off, London Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has declared 2008 as “the year man-made global warming was disproved.” (Last time I checked, his column on this had more than 1,000 comments).

But it’s more than just the chilling effect of winter. Across much of the country (California being a notable exception), recent public polling would seem to indicate an eroding public acceptance of climate science, increasingly divided along party lines. A survey by the Pew Research Center last spring found that 71% of those surveyed accepted the basic premise of climate change but less than half believed it was related to human activity (“Republicans are increasingly skeptical,” noted Pew).

The most common arguments set forth by skeptics are pretty well summarized in this letter we got from William McKillop, a resource economist now retired from the U.C. system. I present McKillop’s comments without annotation, except for one, which you’ll find at the end of his remarks, below. As always, I invite your comments.

<><>

Human Activity May Not Be The Main Cause Of Global Warming

  • It is possible that human activity may not be the main cause of global warming.
  • Humans are responsible for only 2% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions and less than two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year.
  • Higher temperatures increase non-human emissions of carbon dioxide from plant-life and the sea
  • Recent reductions in sunspots on the solar surface suggest that we may be entering into a cooling period
  • More than 17,000 scientists of diverse backgrounds signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they saw “no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.”
  • The Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy $100 to $200 billion per year, as estimated by the Clinton Department of Energy.
  • Kyoto would restrain temperature increases by less than one degree and delay global warming by only six years.
  • Kyoto was rejected by the U.S. Senate 95-0.

It is legitimate to recognize that global warming is taking place and will cause significant problems. And few in the U.S. will deny that we should decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East. But some persons think it is heresy to disagree with the view that human activity may not be the main cause of global warming rather than factors such as change in solar activity and change in the earth’s orbit and tilt. Some of them appear to be confused. They do not seem to understand that the debate is not about the fact that global warming is taking place but rather about its major cause. Some believe, based on a review of 928 studies that there is no controversy that human activity is causing global warming. They seem not to realize that only 2 percent of the 928 studies wholly endorsed that claim and that there were 11,000 studies on the subject that were not examined.

One should also be careful in studying findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A University of Auckland [New Zealand] paper by C.R. de Freitas says “The UN IPCC’s voice to the public, press and policy makers regarding climate science is through summaries; in particular, the brief, politically approved “Summaries for Policymakers” (SPM), which have become notorious for their bias, tendency to overstate problems and penchant for simplifying and dramatizing scientific speculation”. Nor should one be swayed by the fact that a large number of scientists contributed to the preparation of the IPCC report. In 2000, Professor S. Fred Singer testified to the U.S. Senate that more than 17,000 scientists of diverse backgrounds signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they saw “no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.”

Modeling of the causes of global warming requires use of a comprehensive data series and a complete and logical set of explanatory variables. A proper analysis should use a data set that includes the whole of the twentieth century and not just the last few decades. Also, it should include as explanatory variables, measures of solar activity and indicators of the earth’s orbit and tilt. Carbon dioxide concentration by itself is an inadequate explanatory variable, especially in view of the fact that higher temperatures increase non-human emissions of carbon dioxide from plant-life and the sea.

Persons who are eager to place predominant blame on mankind for global warming often specialize in personal attacks on those who have an opposing view. For example, they promulgate smears that dissenting scientists are bribed by energy producers such as “Big Oil”. People who want to know the facts should seriously study websites such as geocraft.com, friendsofscience.org, investorsinsight.com and meteo.lcd.lu.

For a broad overview they should read “The politics of global warming,” an interview of the Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, in the February 10, 2007 Pittsburgh, PA Tribune. They should be dismissive of attempts by entities with a political agenda to smear Dr. Ball and others. Persons with a background in science should read the critique of the climate change modeling process by Meyer (A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to anthropogenic global warming); and “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by Robinson and Soon. Persons with a background in science and economics should read the scathing analysis of the IPCC and Stern report by a British panel of fourteen independent expert scientists and economists at katewerk.com. They should consider whether it is wise to impose huge costs on consumers by adopting the Kyoto Protocol for very little gain. [Kyoto would cost the U.S. economy $100 to $200 billion per year, as estimated by the Clinton Department of Energy, and restrain temperature increases by less than one degree. That is equivalent to delaying global warming by only six years]. Kyoto was rejected by the U.S. Senate 95-0.

They should pay particular attention to the chart on the Friends of Science home page which shows a close relationship between temperature anomaly and the length of sunspot cycles, but a very weak relationship between temperature anomaly and concentration of carbon dioxide. Recent reductions in sunspots on the solar surface suggest that we may be entering into a cooling period. And, in his movie, even Al Gore seems to be aware that tilt of the Northern Hemisphere towards the sun leads to global warming because of its greater land mass. The Geocraft website explains the effect of cyclical eccentricities in the earth’s rotation and orbit.

Furthermore, on the basis of U.S. Department of Energy data, J. DuHamel in his paper, Climate Change in Perspective, noted “that humans are responsible for 2% to 5% of total CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide constitutes about 3% to 4% of total greenhouse gases by volume; therefore anthropogenic CO2 represents less than two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year”.

<><>

Editor’s Note: McKillop makes reference to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition, first circulated in 1998. This is often cited by climate change skeptics, including the chairman of General Motors. Others, however, including the National Academy of Sciences, have called this petition drive and its bona fides into serious question. Likewise the climate science credentials of Arthur B. Robinson & Willie Soon, whose paper is also cited here, have been similarly challenged.

Photo by Chuck Miller: October snow in Pierrepont Manor, NY

Water

Cities, Farmers, Ski Resorts Sweat Out the Snowpack

“Better late than never”is about all you can say if you’re keeping a wary eye on the Sierra snowpack. Winter finally arrived in the Lake Tahoe region, just in time for Christmas skiers–but maybe not in time for water consumers looking ahead to next summer.

As of Christmas Day, the three key reservoirs in northern California were all at less than half of their “normal” levels for this time of year; Shasta (47%), Oroville (45%) and Folsom (44%). Oroville, a critical link in the State Water Project, was at just 22% of its total capacity.

With the winter’s first hands-on Sierra snow survey coming up next week, Elissa Lynn, Sr. Meteorologist for DWR tells me that readings from the network of automated snow sensors indicate that we’re about 15% of the way toward a full “normal” season (as measured on April 1st). That means we have a lot of catching up to do.

Ski resorts are already having a lean year and as Tom Knudson writes in today’s Sacramento Bee, some are looking ahead to when climate change might cause this kind of year to become the norm.

Uncategorized

Climate Coverage: From Drywall to Rubber Ducks

You just never know where the next climate story will come from.

This week on KQED’s Quest Radio, Marjorie Sun reports on how some of the most common building materials are among the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Manufacturing your most basic buttcrack essentials like drywall, steel and cement requires vast amounts of energy. Now, several Silicon Valley start-ups are looking for cleaner solutions and some of their efforts are drawing major venture capital.

Then from the “concrete” to the…well, how would you describe this?  I’m not sure but it’s one of my favorite climate experiments of the year: NASA Deploys Rubber Ducks for Cryosphere Clues. Scientists from California’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena are behind this BBC story that probably should’ve been posted on April 1st.

We’re all pulling for these rubberized cryonauts, hoping they don’t end up in an endless swirl as part of the giant Pacific plastic trash vortex that David Gorn reported on in August.

Government & Business

AB-32: Now What?

Whew. OK, two years after California’s Global Warming Solutions Act was passed into law, the “solutions” package now has the force of regulation…sort of.

The unanimous vote of the California Air Resources Board yesterday to accept its “scoping plan” for implementation, wasn’t so much the final gun as the second-half kickoff. Don’t get me wrong: the vote was momentous as a kind of intermediate milestone. But there’s a lot to do if the law is really to kick in as scheduled, three years from now.

For instance, there’s that whole cap-and-trade thing. When it comes to putting a market in place for trading carbon credits, the carbon cops in Sacramento have agreed to collaborate with a half-dozen other states and follow the general conventions of the Western Climate Initiative, which are still to be worked out.

Then there’s that pesky EPA waiver to let California put its own regulations for tailpipe emissions in place. The state law enabling that has been on the books for about five years now, stalled by federal EPA officials under the Bush administration. Okay, that’s a gimme. We already know that waiver will finally be granted, sometime shortly after Inauguration Day. But even that signals the start of a complex internal process to get the new regs in place.

In fact, virtually nothing about AB-32 is automatic. As they say, the Devil is in the details. And most details have yet to be laid out, argued about, and worked out, before we can really start marking progress toward the broad goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions (which are still rising, worldwide).

I sat down with James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the Air Board, and asked him what happens next. You can hear his answer by clicking on the player, below.

[audio:http://kqed03.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/climatewatch/goldstene.mp3|titles=James Golstene on AB-32]
Government & Business

CNN: Berkeley Lab’s Chu to Head DOE

xbd200805-00226-24.jpgReuters news agency is quoting CNN today in reporting that Steve Chu will get the nod from President-elect Obama to head the U.S. Dept. of Energy.

Since 2004, the Nobel laureate physicist has been the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Lab spokesman Lynn Yarris said he could not confirm the report. In an email to KQED’s Cy Musiker, he wrote that Chu is traveling until next week, adding that right now the report is “all still speculation.”

Chu has maintained a fairly high profile, writing op-ed pieces on America’s energy future and lecturing on potential solutions to climate change (note that this link is to an hour-long video).

He’s also been a vocal supporter of California’s comprehensive plan to attack climate change, known by the shorthand AB-32. From an opinion piece for the San Francisco Chronicle last year, co-written with U.C. Berkeley’s chancellor, Robert Birgeneau:

“The development of new, carbon-neutral energy sources are needed to avert the predictions of disastrous climate change. The landmark global warming legislation signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year committing our state to ambitious reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 is a strong and encouraging step. California is a national and global leader moving toward a sustainable energy future, and it is in the public mission of the University of California to help find ways to meet these goals.”

LBNL has been a leader in developing energy-saving technology, from lighting to windows, to “cool-roof” coatings.

In 2006 Chu was interviewed on KQED’s Pacific Time.

The California Air Resources Board is expected to vote on final acceptance of an implementation plan for AB-32 tomorrow. Speaking of which, published reports indicate that Mary Nichols, who heads California’s air board, will be passed over for the top spot at the Environmental Protection Agency, and that the nod will go to Lisa Jackson, a former state environmental regulator in New Jersey.

Photo: LBNL.

Government & Business

Pipeline to Poznan

Map courtesy of Encyclopedia Britannica OnlineAs a general rule, I’d say anything that already has 789 credentialed media members covering it doesn’t need me there. That’s the announced size of the press contingent at the UN climate talks going on this week in Poznan, Poland. All those reporters should find something to write about, among the 10,696 reps from 187 countries.

And yet, expectations are not high for this round, which is described by the U.N.’s Yvo deBoer as “the halfway point” to a successor agreement for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. DeBoer says he is hoping for substantive progress on matters like deforestation and technology transfer.

So far it’s sounding a lot like the recent Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills–at least until President-elect Barack Obama seized the crowd by laying out his aggressive plans for climate policy. His four-minute video greeting effectively let the air out of Poznan, which is being staffed, of course, by a U.S. delegation from the outgoing Bush administration.

Recently I had a chance to get a Poznan preview from Jonathan Pershing, a former science and climate advisor in the Clinton Administration, now at the non-profit World Resources Institute.  You can hear my radio report about California’s influence on the tone of the UN climate talks on The California Report.

Use the audio player below to hear a one-minute excerpt from my interview with Pershing.