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.
The Science

Science Reporting Imperiled?

2 Comments

New York Times writer Andrew Revkin seems to have struck a nerve with his recent post about the apparent demise of science journalism in the mainstream media. The comments are pouring in and from what I’m reading there, the audience for this kind of reporting is devoted, even if it does too often fly under the radar of programmers and editors.

I’m pleased to observe that so far, at least, public broadcasters seem to be bucking the trend. Here at KQED, the science/environmental multimedia initiative Quest is already well established and the funding commitment we have for Climate Watch should keep us afloat for the foreseeable future.

It would appear that the erosion of science coverage in the media is a mirror image of what’s happening at the climate policy level. With the world’s economy in a tailspin, there’s a sense among many policymakers that there are bigger fish to fry than coping with the longer-term effects of climate change. Some would counter that there are few “bigger fish” than the ability of the Earth to support human life but hey, that’s not scheduled to end tomorrow and maybe your job is.

Whatever the state of the economy, responsible coverage of science is a crucial element–perhaps more so than ever–in maintaining an informed public, which in turn can set priorities accordingly.

Government & Business

Can “31,000 Scientists” Be Wrong? You Betcha.

2 Comments

Especially when there aren’t actually 31,000 of them. But that hasn’t stopped climate change skeptics from trotting out something called the Global Warming Petition Project to help make their case that human-induced climate change is a lot of hooey.

For example, Bob Lutz, the Chairman of General Motors,  likes to cite it when he refutes “the CO2 theory” of global warming. Of course executives from old-line auto and oil companies could be expected to grope for credible-sounding skeptics. But this weekend my morning coffee nearly came out of my nose when I saw San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders fall back on the threadbare petition argument in a Sunday magazine piece entitled “Warming Science and Science Fiction” (not available online at this writing).

The framers of the petition assert that:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

“So far,” wrote Saunders, “more than 31,000 scientists have signed it.”

What Saunders doesn’t say is that this effort was launched fully 10 years ago by a rinky-dink rural concern called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. According to the Project’s own website, only 40 of the more than 31,000 signatories are trained in climatology (114 in “atmospheric science”). But we really have no way of knowing. The Project’s instructions for prospective signers say:

“Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.”

But it seems to run entirely on the honor system. There is no way to independently verify information given by the signatories about their training and experience. And the group’s qualification for “scientist” is a little lax, to put it mildly. An undergraduate degree in any science or engineering-related field hardly ordains one as an authority on climate change.

The group uses as its poster scientist Edward Teller, a key figure on the Manhattan Project and legendary “Father of the H-Bomb.” Teller died in 2003 at age 95, so it’s possible that he did sign this. And given his famously contrarian personality, it’s not even unlikely. Even so, the august Dr. Teller was a nuclear physicist–not a climatologist.

Saunders isn’t the first journalist to take the bait. In fact, she appeared to be sourcing an article that she read on the website Politico.com.

The Oregon petition and its promoters have been roundly criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and repeatedly debunked by others.

Even so, the petition has had traction in California. According to the Project’s web site, more than 3,700 of its supporters identify themselves as Californians (the second most signatures–3,500+–allegedly come from Texas. No other state comes close).

What’s more disturbing is that it continues to get traction in press accounts and policy circles. Given the volume of climate research over the past ten years that has affirmed the IPCC’s conclusions on global warming, one has to wonder how many of the petition’s original signers would do so again.

Government & Business

Air Board Responds to LAO Critique

The California Air Resources Board has formulated a written response to the very unflattering report by the state Legislative Analyst (LAO) described here last week. The Air Resources Board is the lead agency in implementation of the state’s attack on climate change, known by its legislative shorthand, AB-32.

The Board admits that most (70%) of the savings in AB-32 flow from one measure, the so-called Pavley regulations on vehicle emissions. But it insists that even without those, the overall plan still pencils, economically.

The Air Board also concedes that its economic analysis was not complete when it issued its “scoping plan” for implementation, but counters that it has since done some more number-crunching and that the bottom line is still a net benefit of about $300 million per year, as the first phase of the plan is unfolding. After 2012, the Board says, annual savings to Californians ramp up to nearly $3 billion.

Government & Business

State Climate Strategy Hits a Sustainability Snag

3 Comments

3060242318_80122bcff7_m.jpgIs AB-32 sustainable? The state’s Legislative Analyst seems to think it’s a valid question.

A series of reports from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (California’s version of the federal GAO) casts doubt on the long-term viability of the nation’s most ambitious attack on climate change.

Just as the Governor was tuning up for his Climate Summit last week, the LAO released a report questioning the economics of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, aka AB-32. The report assails the assumptions and projections made by the Air Resources Board, in estimating the effect of AB-32’s implementation on the state’s economy. The board’s “scoping plan” projects net annual savings of $16 billion.

Among the LAO’s conclusions:

– The [ARB] plan’s evaluation of the costs and savings of some recommended measures is inconsistent and incomplete. The plan does not reflect the costs and savings of all of the emissions reduction measures that it recommends.

– Macroeconomic modeling results show a slight net economic benefit to the plan, but ARB failed to demonstrate the analytical rigor of its findings. Despite its findings—slight, eventual overall benefit to the economy—the macroeconomic analysis conducted by ARB provides little insight.

– The findings are highly dependent upon key assumptions, and ARB has not performed an analysis to determine how sensitive the macroeconomic findings are to changes in the key assumptions.

– The plan fails to lay out an “investment pathway.” Despite its prediction of eventual net economic benefit, the scoping plan fails to lay out an investment pathway to reach its goals for GHG emissions levels in 2020.

The LAO found that the lion’s share of the economic benefit from AB-32 is presumed to spring from one emissions control measure, that’s actually part of a separate law (AB 1493, passed in 2002). According to the analysis, implementation of the “Pavley regulations” would account for 18% of the greenhouse gas reductions and 70% of savings and benefits attributed to AB-32 in the air board’s scoping plan. That plan is likely scheduled for formal sign-off by the board in the next few weeks.

The report was not widely distributed but was contained in a letter to Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Sacramento), who requested the analysis.

All the angst over economic impact of AB-32 may be moot, given the findings of another recent LAO study, which warned that we may not be able to put the darn thing into effect, anyway. The state is presently keeping the program alive by borrowing tens of millions of dollars from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund. The LAO says the Schwarzenegger administration “has failed to produce a sustainable, long-term funding plan for AB-32 implementation.”

 

Government & Business

Obama Steals the Show

news-obama2-140x140.jpgIt was one of those rare occasions when a video gets a standing ovation.

But President-elect Barack Obama’s video greeting to 800-plus attendees at the Governors’ Climate Summit in LA had quite a few of them on their feet.

Obama lauded the conference and promised that once he takes office, “Any Governor who works toward clean energy will have a partner in the White House.” So, he said, would any company working to develop clean energy, projecting that five million new “green jobs” will be created in the process.

While he did not say anything he hasn’t said before, Obama bundled most of his previously articulated thoughts on climate response into his brief video comments. He restated his commitment to a federal cap-and-trade program that would help return U.S.-based greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, with an 80% reduction by 2050.

Obama again left the door open to an expansion of nuclear power, saying that the nation would “tap” it, “while making sure it’s safe.”

Referring to the ongoing UN climate talks, the President-elect got one of his biggest ovations when he said “You can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

“Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response,” he said.

The first panel discussion of the two-day summit involved the problem of tallying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Representatives of Mexico and China pledged renewed efforts on that front.

Watch the video greeting below.

Government & Business

Climate Summit Set to Start as L.A. Smolders

2 Comments

The Governors’ Climate Summit convenes Tuesday against the poignant–and salient–backdrop of the multiple wildfires and smoldering ruins ringing Los Angeles.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is hosting the somewhat hastily arranged conference, which is “co-hosted” by the governors of four other U.S. states; Florida, Illinois, Kansas, and Wisconsin. Governors of four other states have pledged to send delegates. Two of these states, Utah and Washington, are already partners with California in the Western Climate Initiative, which recently rolled out a framework for its regional cap & trade program, set to take effect in 2012.

Governor Schwarzenegger said in September that “all 50” US governors would be invited. Sacramento-based AP writer Samantha Young documented invitations to at least 36 governors.

Those who made it are joined by representatives from a dozen other nations, including Mexico, Brazil and importantly, China and India. These last two are linchpins in the success of any concerted effort to control emissions of greenhouse gases. Brazil can make a major contribution in the preservation of tropical forests. And Mexico–well, they’re right next door. And annoyingly, GHG emissions tend to flout international borders. It’s been estimated that on certain days, a quarter of L.A.’s air pollution can be traced to China, though today was certainly not one of them. The odor of smoke from surrounding wildfires followed me down I-5 from Castaic, into the L.A. Basin.

Tuesday’s summit agenda is dominated by breakout sessions devoted to specific sectors and topics, such as energy, transportation and cement manufacturing. Discussions will include representatives of diverse interests, from The Nature Conservancy to Wal-Mart. By Wednesday organizers expect delegates to sign a “joint declaration agreeing to pursue collaborative action to reduce greenhouse gas emission and create opportunities to grow green economies.”

I’ll be following the proceedings and blogging daily from them.

Government & Business

Governor Orders Plan for Rising Seas

Governor Schwarzenegger today issued an executive order (S-13-08) requiring state agencies to assess and plan for rising sea levels caused by climate change.

Wave

The order instructs the California Resources Agency, Dept. of Water Resources, Energy Commission and others to come up with a game plan for coping with the risk of encroaching sea water in coastal areas, and gives them two months to convene an “independent panel” to study the problem and make recommendations.

According to the Governor’s order:

“California’s water supply and coastal resources, including valuable natural habitat areas, are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise over the next century and could suffer devastating consequences if adaptive measures are not taken…”

The nation’s oldest continuously operating sea level gauge, located at Fort Point in San Francisco,  logged a seven-inch rise during the last century. Current projections, which combine data from traditional ground-based meters with satellite telemetry, project that with a lax response to climate change, the Pacific could rise three times that much this century.

The order goes out three days before Schwarzenegger hosts a Governors’ Climate Summit in Beverly Hills.

Government & Business, Power, Water

The Cost of Sloth

The changing climate could cost Californians “tens of billions of dollars a year.”

Money Man

Those are just the direct costs, toted up in a new report by economists at U-C Berkeley.
“California Climate: Risk and Response” is billed as the first comprehensive report on the costs that may be inflicted on California from the effects of climate change. The 127-page report was co-authored by Fredrich Kahl and David Roland-Holst of Berkeley’s Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability (part of the Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics).

Higher energy demand, heat waves, scarce water, wildfire and rising sea levels–even the “collapse” of the state’s half-billion-dollar ski industry–are just some of the potential cost drivers. The “good news,” according to the report, is that much of this cost could be avoided by immediate investment in strategies to prepare.

A key question is where the money will come from—especially in tough economic times—to invest in the energy and other infrastructure needed to stave off the worst damage. Skip Laitner of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, says we’re not necessarily talking about finding “new” money for these investments. “In the US economy,” says Laitner, “we’re looking at almost two trillion dollars of investment anyway, regardless of how tight the market is. The point I think is a smart re-deployment of investment to more productive uses.”

That includes rapid development of renewable energy and measures to use water more efficiently. The study was funded by the nonpartisan think tank known as Next 10 and is just the latest in a repeating chorus of studies making the point that a full-on confrontation with climate change will, in the long run, be good for the economy, and may even provide some near-term stimulus.

Just weeks ago, Roland-Holst unveiled a separate study on the potential for job creation from promoting conservation and a shift to renewable energy. Earlier this week, a Cal State Fullerton study put a $28 billion-dollar current price tag on air pollution in the south coast and San Joaquin Valley regions.

Roland-Holst will be one of the guests on KQED’s Forum program tomorrow (Friday). He’ll be joined by representatives from Next 10 and Environment California, in a robust discussion of the cost of climate change.

Government & Business, Power

Seizing the Moment

1 Comment

All the hand-wringing about seized-up capital markets hasn’t stopped environmental visionaries from promoting their scenarios for a clean, green–and robust–economy. Indeed, many have seized  the moment to suggest that an all-out attack on climate change and pollution could be just what the doctor ordered.

They’re being egged on by the President-elect, who offered this nugget in a recent pre-election interview with Time magazine:

“…we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.”

That’s a whopping assumption. Nevertheless the advocacy group Environment California has released its own vision, asserting that clean energy is “the foundation of America’s economic future.” The group’s Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Environmental Protection Through Clean Energy Solutions is not groundbreaking but rather an aggregation of ideas and studies that have been put forth already, leading to the same general conclusion.

imgp2085.JPG

The report attempts to bundle the potential of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, coupled with aggressive conservation measures, which it says could alone cut the nation’s electric use by a quarter.

For example, Environment California suggests that we might set aside 9% of Nevada (that’s about 10,000 square miles–imagine Massachusetts covered border-to-border with solar panels) for solar-thermal installations or harness the wind potential of five interior states (the Dakotas, Kansas, Montana and Texas), either one could cover the nation’s entire electric bill. Of course, either of these approaches would require massive, intrusive distribution networks to get the power where it’s needed, so I these ideas may be intended as inspirational, not literal.

Another idea, which requires very little distribution infrastructure, is carpeting the nation’s rooftops with photovoltaic solar panels. The group says that would provide about 70% of our energy needs.

The report also advocates for cutting our oil consumption in half, though it does not specify by when.

How does all this translate to economic redemption? By creating “millions of jobs.” According to the report:

“…repowering America will plant the seeds of economic growth and revitalization across the country. And by creating the world’s largest market for renewable energy and energy efficient technology, we will give American companies a leg up in the most important economic competition of the 21st century – the race to supply environmentally sound technologies to the rest of the world.”

The report cites several studies to support this conclusion. Some were done several years ago and may contain assumptions that don’t quite hold up in today’s recessionary, capital-constrained environment. The more recent work includes a University of Tennessee study from 2006, which projected that converting a quarter of U.S. electric production and transportation fuels would, over about 20 years, yield more than five million jobs.

You are guaranteed to hear a great deal more on this theme, as a new administration takes charge with it’s “number one priority.” Still unanswered is who will provide the capital–and the incentives to steer capital–into the clean, green economy of our dreams.

Photo: Installing solar panels on the roof at KQED.

Uncategorized

A New Slogan for Reno

Reno, NV has long laid claim to being “The Biggest Little City in the World.” Now it could claim to be one of the fastest-warming towns in America.

Reno Arch

According to a survey of US cities from Environment America,  Reno averaged 4 degrees (Fahrenheit) above”normal” for the calendar year 2007. Citing data from the National Climatic Data Center, the report said that temperatures tended above normal for most of the nation (“normal” is defined as the 30-year average from 1971-2000), but few cities made the exclusive plus-four-degree club.

More telling, perhaps, is the average minimum temperature (overnight low), which clocked in at an eyebrow-raising 5.5 degrees above normal in Reno. Climatologists have noted that throughout the West, “T-minimums” (overnight lows) have been rising almost twice as fast as daytime highs, partially obscuring for many the sensation that things are warming up.

Environment America can be justifiably challenged for implying that one year’s worth of temperature records is any indication of generalized long-term warming. It isn’t. The group takes the position that the warm 2007 was part of a broader trend:

“Between 2000 and 2007, the average temperature was at least 0.5 degrees F above the 30-year average at 228 (89%) of the stations examined (nationwide).”

Reno also made the hot list for cities that showed the most deviation from normal (3.5 degrees F), during the eight-year period 2000-2007. Of all the data collected in the report, this is the most useful number to use in making a case for a persistent warming trend. Skeptics might argue that even eight years of data can be misleading and they’d be right–but other studies have been more than sufficient to confirm that the West is warming. The debate has largely shifted to what to do about it.

Photo courtesy of: RSCVA & VisitRenoTahoe.com.