The IPCC’s prediction for average sea-level rise this century is 13 inches (if global warming continues unchecked). Today’s report from a group of climatologist ups the prediction to 33 inches. This is what the difference looks like on a pair of identical twins. Photo Illustration courtesy Greg Ceo.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the world’s foremost body for weighing and assessing climate science -- received a kick in the pants today from members who say the climate situation is much worse than the IPCC has so far reported.

Twenty-six climatologists -- including 14 IPCC members -- have released a startling update to the panel’s work, reporting that sea levels could rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than the panel had anticipated.

“The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science” is not an official IPCC report; it’s a summary of the hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that have been published since the IPCC’s last assessment. It was released now to fill the long gap in between official IPCC reports -- the last was released in 2007, but the drafting text is more than three years old, and the next isn't scheduled until 2013. It was also timed to the Copenhagen climate talks, of course.

The essence of the new report is that things are grimmer than the IPCC has reported. And it’s not like the panel has been painting a rosy picture -- its 2007 report concluded that the warming-induced melting of the Greenland ice sheet could create significant sea-level rise in this century. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said at the time, “If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Another startling finding: Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period -- short by 80 percent.

The report’s authors (who include the preeminent Stephen Schneider) write that “if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly." If you're keeping score, 2015 is just over five years away -- somewhat less comforting than the distant "2050" you used to hear so much about.

In a time when the correspondence of scientists is hacked and stolen and as a matter of political strategy, some will no doubt dismiss the group’s research entirely. And even IPCC fans may question whether its decision-making process is swift enough to remain relevant. It certainly seems that events are outpacing the political system's ability to deal with them.

Below are the key findings from the report:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets

Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets, Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society -- with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases -- needs to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Related Links:

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

If someone offered you $100 today or an inflation-adjusted $100 in 10 years, it's unlikely you'd choose the latter. But if taking the money now cost your child's generation billions of dollars, that option would seem pretty miserly.

The debate over the economics of climate change boils down to that very calculation: how much are we willing to pay today to avoid climate risks in the future? The simple fact is that as we continue to use fuels that contribute to global warming today, we place major economic burdens on our kids and grandkids tomorrow.

In effect, we are forcing future generations to retroactively subsidize our decision not to increase energy efficiency and move to cleaner fuels. They will be the ones who will have to contend with the most severe effects of climate change -- increased insurance rates for larger flood areas, higher prices for food as farming becomes more difficult, and oceans becoming more acidic. 

For $2.50 per gallon, we can fill up our tanks, but when we do, we charge at least 19 cents per gallon to future generations. Americans use 380 million gallons of gas annually, running up a $26.9 billion tab on our children's credit card every year. After 30 years, that will add up to $807 billion if we go along with business as usual. 

Gasoline consumption represents a tiny fraction of world emissions, all of which will generate damages. The total tab for emissions world wide is almost a trillion dollars a year. Every year that we don't reduce emissions, we keep on piling onto the tab.

This figure assumes that we make a relatively normal transition to higher temperatures. It doesn't take into consideration catastrophic risks of flooding, droughts, and storms that scientists predict may kick into high gear near the turn of the century. When you measure up all of the costs we're pushing onto future generations, there is a serious transfer of wealth from the cohort of global citizens who have yet to be born. 

Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions will not be free -- the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost about $10 per month per household. But major dividends will accrue with this investment -- some to us, but most in the form of benefits to our children and grandchildren's generations.  

By putting a little bit of money aside today, like refusing the $100 in the opening example, we spare future generations from having to make major sacrifices on our behalf. But for the time being at least, we are still holding on to that $100 today even though it will impose huge costs in the future.

Related Links:

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

As a frequent cyclist, I've inevitably been in my share of collisions and accidents. Most bike experts recommend replacing your helmet after any crash, even if the damage isn't visible. Obviously the two most important qualities of a bike helmet are lightweight-ness and strength. That is best achieved by petroleum-based, non-biodegradable substances. Can you recommend how to avoid hurting the environment with these disposable Styrofoam helmets (other than being a more careful cyclist)?

Julia A.
Washington, D.C.

A. Dearest Julia,

Small eco-price to pay for an intact head.Please continue to wear your helmet and replace it after each crash. Cut the straps of your old helmet and write "crashed" on it with a permanent marker, then throw it in the garbage. Biking safely is an ecologically correct practice, even if it occasionally results in a small amount of waste. Two, three, four helmets a year is a small ecological price to pay when we consider the benefits of cycling (though for your body's sake I hope you don't go through this many).

Let us remember that biking is emissions-free transportation. Whether you are commuting by bike or simply taking a brief trip to the store every week, you are ecologically ahead of almost every form of transport save walking. If your bike is simply an exercise device, you are keeping yourself fit and providing inspiration for other would-be cyclists.

Secondly, a lightweight helmet made out of plastic is a fairly innocuous object on the environmental scale. As we have learned over the years, plastic is evil due to the raw materials (petroleum) from which it is made and the eons that will pass ere it degrades. On the bright side, helmets are light, and hence do not require overly much fuel on their trip to the bike store or the landfill -- which would be a concern were they made of gold. Some companies are tinkering with eco-friendly helmets, but I think you should not lose your head over this issue. You could always save your used helmets for some kind of trash sculpture.

Julia, a hospital visit has the potential for much more ecological impact than does your discarded helmet. Your fitness level keeps you (hopefully) from general ill health, and hence reduces the need for greenhouse-gas emitting trips to the doctor. More important, of course, the helmet protects you from serious head injury and/or death, both of which are far more environmentally costly than a piddling nine-ounce helmet. Let's say you were not wearing a helmet and bonked your head in a crash. First the ambulance or a friend's car has to transport you to (and from) the hospital, emitting Earth-damaging gases en route. Then perhaps you have to get a CAT scan or MRI, neither of which would be solar powered. What if you have a bleeding abrasion that requires multiple washings and several sets of bloody sheets and piles of gauze? Maybe they bring you a hospital meal which certainly includes terrible not-shade-grown coffee and some kind of mystery meat from a confined animal feeding operation. In a worst-case scenario, you could scrape off your nose and require years of plastic surgery -- certainly not ecologically OK, and sadly a real-life example.

Wear a bike helmet without worrying too much about the environmental consequences. Umbra, also known as Safety Pup, has spoken.

Cautionarily,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

A few weeks ago, USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that 10,000 facilities would soon have to measure and register their carbon emissions. Last week, she told a packed house at the Governors’ Global Climate Summit2 in Los Angeles that her agency will introduce rules requiring significant new sources of carbon emissions, like a new or remodeled fossil-fueled power plant, to pay for the right to pollute.

Clearly, these are salvos in the Obama administration’s campaign to use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases, rather than wait for Congress to figure out how to do it (last year, when I outlined for presidential candidate Obama how to do this, I sensed it appealed to the law professor in him, even though he was a member of Congress at the time)!

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recoiled in horror at these announcements - - causing PG&E, Exelon, and PNM to cancel their memberships in protest over the Chamber’s “so last-century” position - - others saw opportunity. Among those who will create new jobs in a low-carbon economy are the oft-maligned “bean counters”, or in this case, the carbon counters.

While companies as different as Walmart, Dell, and Walt Disney embrace carbon footprint labels for products as diverse as sneakers, laptops, and movies, they hire in-house experts and outside contractors to decide how best to measure the carbon content and which standards to use. Leaders in the field include PE International, Natural Logic, and Clear Carbon. This is also a major new business development opportunity for engineering firms, currently struggling in the economic downturn, to create whole new areas of expertise and revenue streams. CH2M Hill and Ameresco are two early/major players in that space.

And in anticipation of more regulation and carbon-labeling, new standards and models are being developed around the world for how to measure things that don’t have a smokestack, driving even more business to this new class of carbon accountants. New Zealand’s Former Prime Minister Helen Clark told me how her country is trying to breed cows that “emit” less methane by engineering both the diet and the digestive system. An army of pocket-protectors is now chasing cows and sheep across the NZ landscape to measure the carbon in each belch and fart, demonstrating the broad scope this new profession will have. I guess that’s one way to stimulate a green economy!

Investors and companies should pay attention to the service industry that’s emerging to meet these massive new demands for information. A decade ago, health-conscious consumers forced manufacturers to list nutritional information on food packages. We’ll soon be able to make buying decisions based on carbon content too - - taming our waistlines and “waste lines” at the same time.

Related Links:

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I've been hearing about carbon offsets for awhile and even have purchased some for my car emissions through Terrapass. But I just got an email from my local power company saying that I can pay to offset my own carbon emissions at the low rate of just $8 per month. Is this a good idea? I hear such conflicting stories about the "greening" of coal power plants. How do I know what they are doing with the money?

Mary B.
Winston-Salem, N.C.

A. Dearest Mary,

Is your power company partying in the tropics thanks to you?If a utility is offering carbon offsets or "green power" to their customers, details are usually available on the utility's web site. A customer must then wade through the self-congratulatory text on the site and determine whether or not the utility is actually taking Acapulco vacations with their $8 a month.

Don't put too much emphasis on this being a power company issue, though -- carbon offsets are a puzzle no matter how and where you buy them. There are a variety of "certifiers" and ratings for offsets, and some generally accepted ideas about what makes an offset project acceptable, but as of yet no overarching body with one stamp of approval.

Offsets themselves are an interesting and contentious issue, as you may have seen in these pages. (Check out our recent special series on offsets for a taste.) I got a bit harrumphy about offsets this past weekend, as I drove past a car with a boasting bumpersticker. Not that I could throw any stones (though we did have five people in the car, hooray). I ranted for a while, but am now prepared to offer a calm assessment of how we might all view offsets: Purchasing an individual carbon offset from a company, which then supports renewable energy development, is great. It is a wonderful chance to financially support projects that would not otherwise be able to get up and running. It does not erase whatever emissions we are emitting. So driving around in an SUV with a "My emissions are compensated for" kind of bumpersticker is ... is ... is -- ooh! I'm getting agitated again. Let's just say I think it misleads the uninformed.

If we think of our offset purchases as a charitable contribution to renewable energy development, then the question about whether we purchase them gets a little clearer. Without worrying too much about the financial logistics of green power credits (though they are clearly explained here by moi) we can simply ask: Will my money help create new, long-term projects that otherwise would not have happened (also called "additionality"), and are these projects approved and vetted by somebody? There are other questions, too (a good introduction can be found at CORE) but these are the basics. The answer should be yes.

In North Carolina you have an unusual opportunity to support renewable power generation in your very own state. NC GreenPower is your statewide non-profit green power program, supported and created by your state government, power companies, and fellow citizens. Utilities can offer offsets to consumers such as yourself, then pass the fees over to NC GreenPower, which then uses about a quarter of the money for administration and gives the rest as production incentives to renewable power producers. The idea is to slowly build up North Carolina's renewable energy capacity through what amounts to a small grant system. I found all this out by following the trail from Duke Energy. It all looks legitimate. And if you hate your power company and their coalish ways, you can support NC GreenPower directly.

Locally,
Umbra

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

In some hopeful news for sustainable energy advocates, the latest production numbers from the federal government are out -- and they show that the growth rate of renewable sources continues to outpace nuclear and fossil fuels.

The data come as Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) are expected to introduce legislation today designed to curb man-made climate change, with hearings on their bill  -- a counterpart to the one that narrowly passed the House in June -- expected to begin early next month.

While the politics of the climate bill are likely to be even more contentious than health reform, some note with optimism that a shift toward renewables is already underway.

"As Congress debates energy funding priorities and climate legislation, it would do well to take note of the clear trends in the nation's changing energy mix," says Ken Bossong, executive director of the SUN DAY Campaign, a Maryland-based nonprofit research organization that promotes sustainable energy technologies. "Renewable energy has become a major player -- growing rapidly and nipping at the heels of nuclear power -- while fossil fuel use continues to drop."

According to the latest issue of the Monthly Energy Review published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable energy sources -- biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind -- provided 11.37% of domestic U.S. energy production in June 2009, the most recent month for which data is available. That represents a gain since the first half of 2007, when renewable sources accounted for 9.89% of domestic energy production, and from the same period last year, when they represented 10.2% of production.

At the same time, EIA's latest Electric Power Monthly reports that renewable energy sources provided 11.18% of net U.S. electrical generation for the first six months of 2009 -- a significant gain over renewables' 9.9% share for the first half of 2008.

Renewable energy sources grew by 4.62% during the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. Most of that growth came from wind and hydropower, which expanded by 24.54% and 7.14% respectively in the first half of 2009 compared to the first half of 2008.

In comparison, nuclear power increased by only 1.38%, while domestic fossil fuel production actually dropped by 0.7%. Meanwhile, overall consumption of fossil fuels -- including imports -- declined 7.67%.

The numbers for renewable energy are likely to grow even more in the coming months as planned projects get underway.

Those include a new North Carolina effort to develop offshore wind power. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy and UNC-Chapel Hill are finalizing a contract that would have the company build one to three wind towers in Pamlico Sound while UNC researchers would study environmental impacts, maintenance and other related issues.

At the same time, though, Duke Energy is still investing heavily in new generation from polluting sources, constructing a new $2.4 billion coal-fired power plant at its Cliffside facility in western North Carolina. The Cliffside plant is expected to release to the air annually 6 million tons of carbon dioxide as well as large quantities of chemicals toxic to human health.

Meanwhile, the rate hike the company requested to help pay for the plant has met opposition at public hearings across the state this month, with one local newspaper describing the scene at this week's public hearing in Macon County, N.C. as "a seeming never-ending procession of citizens stating their considered opposition" to the increase, which is also opposed by a grassroots coalition of 25 environmental and public-health advocacy groups.

(This story originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

December 19—the day after COP15

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority and the obligation to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. At a stroke, the politics of climate change were changed. The choice was no longer between legislation or no legislation -- it was between legislation or regulation. One way or another, climate pollution would be controlled by a federal program.

Most experts agree that EPA regulations will be complex and somewhat unwieldy. Industry believes they will be onerous and expensive. Conventional wisdom, at least initially, was that fear of regulation would drive utilities and manufacturers to the bargaining table, changing the dynamic in Congress. EPA was supposed to play the role of the big, silent goon in the corner, tapping his baseball bat in his hand.

That theory isn't holding up too well. Opposition from coal and manufacturing states weakened the bill in the House and its passage through the Senate appears less and less likely. Fossil fuel and other industry groups are lobbying furiously against it. The conservative base equates it with socialism. Democratic Senators are openly expressing skepticism whether a bill can pass this year. Health care may drag on into winter and push it off the agenda; it could fracture into smaller bills; most likely, it simply won't find enough Blue Dog support to overcome a threatened conservative filibuster. At least at the moment, the smart money is on no climate/energy bill this year.

That means EPA regulations are suddenly germane again, though chances are high that 99.99% of Americans will continue to find the subject inscrutable and boring. What can the EPA do? When will it do it? Who will it do it to? How can we stay awake as we contemplate these matters?

Consider this post an effort to describe, in plain language, What the Deal Is with EPA Regulations. There will be acronyms ... but also pictures of bunnies!

What's everyone so scared of?

Why does industry fear, and the Obama administration prefer to avoid, EPA regulations of greenhouse gases? To understand the political dynamic it helps to understand that there's a three-part process ... and the third part is a massive headache.

1. Endangerment finding: A new air pollutant under the Clean Air Act first goes through an endangerment finding -- a determination by the EPA whether it's a threat to public health. For CO2, that's almost done. EPA submitted the finding for public comment and is now reviewing the (many, many) comments it received. It will likely issue the final finding this month or next.

2. Mobile sources: If the EPA chooses to go forward, it then crafts regulations for "mobile sources," i.e. vehicles, under Section 202 of the CAA. That won't be too difficult. In effect, EPA will partner with the Dept. of Transportation to raise CAFE standards; they've already submitted a proposal to do so to the White House Office of Management and Budget. (35.5 miles per gallon by the 2016 model year.) So far so good.

3. Stationary sources: The problem is, once mobile sources are regulated, the EPA must, by law, also regulate stationary sources, i.e., power plants and industrial facilities. That is a serious can of worms, which will involve creative interpretations, contentious decisions, and many, many lawsuits. Why so difficult? We'll get to that later, after a few more bunnies. First:

A little history

There's a fascinating backstory to be told about Mass. v EPA, the 2007 Supreme Court case that shook the political world. But we'll skip it. Instead let's jump in just after it passed.

The Bush EPA wanted to move quickly. Bush had identified America's addiction to oil in his State of the Union speech and proceeded to do very little about it, so there was some openness in the White House to conceding on a boost in CAFE standards. Since EPA regulation of mobile sources would effectively amount to just that, the Bushies were amenable to it.

To lead the large and capable team assembled to hash out the regulations (upwards of 100 people all told), EPA brought in Jason Burnett. Burnett is semi-famous to Grist readers for quitting the EPA in protest some months later, alleging interference from the Office of the Vice President. But initially, he says, "we were on a very fast clock. There was political desire to get everything done by the end of the administration's time [in office]."

(See: full transcript of my wonky interview with Burnett.)

What changed? In short, Congress passed the Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA), "which did much of what we were planning on doing through regulations," says Burnett. "After passage of the EISA, there was another way of accomplishing those same goals, and [the administration] didn't then need to deal with the stationary source ramifications."

At that point, things came to a crashing halt. Burnett sent the endangerment finding to the OMB, but the White House refused to open it. They told Burnett to take it back; he refused and left the agency. After that, the administration ran out the clock with endless public comment.

Obama came into office pledging to kick the process into gear, and he has. Lisa Jackson's EPA has been hashing through the issues quickly. The final endangerment finding is coming soon, the mobile-source proposal is already on paper, and the stationary-source regulations ... well, they're another matter.

What's so dang hard about stationary source regulations?

Grasping the challenges that greenhouse gases pose to the Clean Air Act means venturing into some fairly wonky territory; it is recommended that readers keep their bunnies with them at all times. Every effort will be made to minimize the ... hey, you there, wake up!

OK, the deal is, stationary sources of air pollution have to get a permit from the EPA. The permitting process is called New Source Review (NSR), implemented as part of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. All new sources have to go through this process.

What about existing sources, the ones already up and running in 1977? In particular, what about the large U.S. fleet of old, inefficient, filthy pulverized coal power plants built in the '40s, '50s, and '60s? Funny you should ask. Therein lies the problem(s).

Existing sources were not brought under NSR. They were "grandfathered," in the lingo. Enviros consider this a deal with the devil, the Original Sin of the CAA. See: Carl Pope.

Congress didn't completely ignore existing sources, though. NSR also specifies that any existing facility that makes "major modifications" that produce a "significant increase" in air pollution must get a permit.

How much is a significant increase? That's defined by a standard called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). What must facilities in attainment areas (long story, let's not bother) do to get a permit? They must install what's called Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

NSR! PSD! BACT! Can you feel the electricity in the room? Let's take a short bunny break ...

Anyway, this kludged-together NSR/PSD/BACT policy created all sorts of problems and has been the subject of endless lawsuits. And here's the thing: Many of the problems will be exacerbated by the extension of the Clean Air Act to cover greenhouse gases.

For instance: the PSD standard is now 100 tons for some facilities, 250 tons for others. Problem is, while 100 tons is a significant amount of most traditional air pollutants, it's a reasonably meager amount of CO2. A coal power plant producing 10 or 20 million tons of CO2 a year could trip the PSD trigger merely by running a few extra minutes a year. "The scare story," says Burnett, "is that that will cause facility managers for any large source of pollution to just freeze up and not make any modifications at all." The problem, he says, is that "these large emitters just emit so, so much CO2."

More troublesome: once you get down to 100 tons you're talking about churches, schools, and retirement homes. This is the conservative nightmare scenario, that EPA's regulatory reach will cover the entire economy and it will be red tape hell for every mom-and-pop operation.

Another problem is BACT itself. What is the best available technology for controlling CO2 emissions from, say, a coal power plant? Is it simply burning coal more efficiently? Cofiring with biomass or solar? Using carbon capture and storage, which is not yet commercially available? 'Tis vexing. EPA will be breaking new ground, setting new precedents. Lawsuits will follow.

PSD solution ... sort of

As we speak, EPA is trying to solve the PSD problem by raising the threshold from 250 tons to 25,000 tons (it has submitted such a rule to OMB). This is in line with the new mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule it proposed in March, which only applies to facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of CO2 a year.

Raising the threshold to 25,000 tons would exempt schools, churches, etc. -- overall it would cover about 13,000 large industrial facilities, which represent 85-90% of U.S. emissions. So it would solve one of the biggest problems. Recall, however, that conservatives and (some) industries want EPA rules to be a regulatory/legal nightmare, and will do everything they can to insure that outcome.

Since raising the threshold would reduce the friction, some conservatives, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Marlo Lewis, are arguing that it is illegal for EPA to unilaterally change the threshold. The rule, if it goes into effect, will undoubtedly be litigated to a fare-thee-well.

(Note: Congress could pass a one-line amendment to the Clean Air Act: "PSD for CO2 is 25,000 tons." Boom, problem solved. If the climate bill goes down in flames and the EPA's threshold rule is rejected, this is a easy face-saving move for Dems.)

The EPA might also try to express the greenhouse gas threshold with reference to a more potent gas like methane -- the standard could be "250 tons of methane or methane-equivalent," which would be lots of CO2. Even if the court rules against EPA, it might allow the agency to start at 25,000 and ratchet down to 250 on a schedule. There are also ways the EPA could make permitting for small sources relatively painless (think: a post card), but getting into more detail on this just feels anti-bunny.

BACT solution ... not really

BACT is determined on a case-by-case basis. Whatever rulings the EPA makes, the precedent-setters, will be litigated to high heaven. There will be blood.

Cap and trade?

Another way forward, which some say could reduce compliance costs, is for the EPA to set up its own cap-and-trade program for stationary sources.

There's a checkered history here. During Burnett's original spin through EPA, he was involved in trying to develop a cap-and-trade system for mercury. Industry supported it but environmentalists loathed it, mainly due to concern over mercury "hot spots" (there are no such concerns for CO2). The courts ultimately ruled against that program; the Bush administration appealed; Obama's EPA is going to drop the appeal.

But Burnett still thinks it can be done:

You dust off the legal argument EPA made for using [the CAA] for a cap-and-trade system, and you search and replace mercury with CO2. You'd put both environmental groups and industry in an awkward position. Environmental groups would want to support the rule, presumably. Industry would not want to, but they're already on record saying EPA has authority to issue a cap-and-trade system under [CAA Section] 111. They wanted to have that for mercury.

Interestingly, an EPA-run cap-and-trade system would not have the same federal mandates as a legislative system. Instead it would effectively set out overall targets and allow states to figure out how to meet those targets. For states already covered by regional cap-and-trade systems -- RGGI in the Northeast, MGGA in the Midwest, and WCI in the West -- that would probably mean relatively minor tweaks in their existing systems. For all other states, it would mean linking into one of those systems or developing a new one.

Some folks, like Terry Tamminen, are advocates of this bottom-up approach, saying that it's better to allow for regional variation and experimentation than get locked into a weak federal program. As yet, EPA hasn't shown any indication that it will pursue this route, but it could still happen.

Political implications

So how will all this play politically?

Conventional wisdom was that the threat of EPA regulations would make carbon-intensive industry amenable to a climate bill. But after seeing what passed the House, they've largely decided that they would rather have "the uncertainty of the Clean Air Act than the absolute certainty of a very expensive [legislative] program," says Jeffrey Holmstead of Bracewell-Giuliani, who served at EPA under the second President Bush. Among those in heavy industry and the non-nuclear power sector, "it is nearly a universally held view that they're better off just living with the CAA than they are having to deal with something like Waxman-Markey," say Holmstead.

That's not to say those industries will accept EPA regulations gracefully. Just as coal and oil have waged war against the climate bill, they'll wage war on EPA regulations. They will sue as often as possible, at each stage. Already the Chamber of Commerce has announced its intent to sue against the vehicle regulations -- and those, remember, had been hashed out with automakers beforehand. They were supposed to be the easy part.

The war against EPA regulations will also be waged with aggressive public relations campaigns. There will be great hue and cry about the economy-destroying burden that command-and-control regulations impose on American business. And unlike with a climate bill, responsibility (read: blame) cannot be dispersed. There is no hint of bipartisanship. Responsibility for EPA regulations will fall entirely on Barack Obama and his administration, not on Congress -- which is probably how Congress prefers it. If it's a total mess, or demagogued as one (as is all but certain), it's Obama that takes the hit. That is yet another reason he'd rather avoid it.

Greens are fighting to preserve EPA authority in the climate bill. Some have even said that it would be preferable for legislation to fail and the EPA to take over. It's not hard to understand why -- something needs to be done about existing coal plants, and there aren't many tools in the climate bill toolbox to address them. But no one should be under any illusions. The NSR/PSD/BACT approach is grossly suboptimal for the job that needs doing. It might have the intended effect -- killing coal plants -- but there's potential for unintended effects as well, including substantial political blowback.

Both sides, greens and industry, have reason to fear if the climate bill fails. It's terra incognita, a volatile and unpredictable situation. Obama doesn't need any more problems like that. That's among the reasons he is likely, this fall, to put some of the time and energy toward lobbying for a good climate bill. From his narrow political perspective, virtually any bill is preferable to catching the EPA tiger by the tail. That tiger eats bunnies.

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

“If we lost just 1 percent of the carbon in permafrost today, we’d be close to a year’s contributions from industrial sources. I don’t think policymakers have woken up to this. It’s not in their risk assessments.”

—Permafrost expert Chris Burn of Carleton Universiy

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

Ask Umbra on bike helmets

Washington Post food-politics columnist Ezra Klein has taken a stand: people should eat less meat, because of its vast greenhouse gas footprint. To make his case, Ezra cited the FAO's landmark "Livestock's Long Shadow" report, which found that global meat production is responsible for 18 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.

To be honest, when I read Ezra's column, I thought, "yeah, and?" Of course we should eat less meat. But how far will individual choice take us? Shouldn't we focus on forcing the meat industry to pay up for its massive externalities, including its contribution to climate change? Yet this eat-less-meat plea ended up generating more controversy than I thought possible.

In a letter to the editor published Monday, J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat institute, fired back, declaring Klein's take on meat "inaccurate and not scientifically based." How so? According to Boyle:

The Environmental Protection Agency concluded that in 2007, only 2.8 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions came from animal agriculture.

He concludes: "The animal protein sector in the United States is environmentally and socially responsible, and we strive to provide the safest, most abundant and most wholesome product to consumers domestically and worldwide."

Oh, really?

Boyle is a veteran fighter for the big-meat cause. The AMI lobbies on behalf of meat packers like Tyson, Cargill, and Smithfield. According to his bio, Boyle has led AMI since 1990. He had prepped himself for a career as a top lobbyist the traditional way--by working for the agency he would later lobby. His bio declares:

From 1986-89, Boyle was administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). At AMS, he oversaw such programs as federal meat grading and the national beef and pork checkoff programs. He was responsible for administering 37 federal statutes affecting food quality, safety, research and marketing of meat, poultry, milk, fruits, vegetables, cotton and tobacco.

Indeed, the AMI is a popular stop for those who swing through the revolving door between government jobs and plumb lobbying positions. Click around its staff page and you'll find plenty of former USDA and Congressional-staff apparatchiks.

So what of Boyle's claim that Klein way overstated the GHG footprint of U.S. meat--that meat, in fact, contributes just 2.8 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions as compared to the FAO's global estimate of 18 percent?

First, it should be noted that Klein and Boyle are talking about different things: Klein used global numbers, while Boyle pointed to strictly U.S. numbers.

And as Ralph Loglisci of The Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University points out in a recent blog post, the U.S. number will certainly be lower than the global one, for the simple reason that the U.S. spews out so much more greenhouse gases from all sources than the rest of the world.

We're the globe's largest per-capita emitter of greenhouse gas (and a close second to China in overall emissions). Here, the meat industry exists alongside a 211 million-strong fleet of generally low-mileage cars (propped up by a low-functioning mass-transit system), a network of coal-fired power plants that supply half of our electricity, and a built environment characterized by low-density sprawl.

In short, comparing meat's share of greenhouse gas emissions domestically and globally, the denominator--total emissions--is relatively much higher domestically. To use that truism to excuse the carbon footprint of the U.S. meat industry is ridiculous--a form of vulgar relativism. Just because they're surrounded by an abundance  of SUVs and coal-fired power plants doesn't make our meat factories any more benign.

Next, it must be acknowledged that the FAO study Klein cites and Boyle's EPA source were measuring different things. As Loglisci points out, the FAO sought to calculate meat's total GHG footprint--not only methane from cows and nitrous oxide from manure, but also emissions related to growing and hauling feed grains and moving processed meat to market. The EPA numbers cited by Boyle, by contrast, measure only methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from manure. Emissions related to feed are accounted for elsewhere, as is carbon released in the process of ventilating massive confinement houses, and moving meat from production centers like North Carolina and Iowa to far-flung markets.

Perhaps most egregiously of all, Boyle's cherry-picked stat thus wrongly absolves the meat industry from nitrous oxide emissions associated with growing corn--a massive source of greenhouse gas.

How massive? According to the National Corn Growers Association (PDF), 44 percent of U.S. corn becomes domestic animal feed, and another 10 percent ends up in feed rations as the ethanol byproduct distillers grains. That means more than half of U.S. corn--our nation's largest farm crop--ends up on feedlots.

And farmers use more nitrogen fertilizer on corn than any other crop by a wide margin. Using data from the charts on this USDA page, I estimate corn sucks in about 44 percent of nitrogen fertilizer applied in U.S. agriculture. So based on its reliance on corn, U.S. feedlot agriculture is responsible for nearly a quarter of total U.S. nitrous oxide emissions. And Boyle's number conveniently omits that.

The omission is not trivial. In the agriculture section (PDF) of its "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990-2007," the EPA credits "agriculture soil management"--i.e., nitrous oxide from fertilizer application--with about half of ag-related GHG emissions. And guess what? The EPA may be seriously underestimating here. A 2007 study by the Dutch Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist, concluded (PDF) that the accepted estimates for how much nitrogen fertilizer ends up in the air as NO2 could be off by a factor of as much as five.

So if Boyle's 2.8 percent figure is off the mark, what percentage of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions does actually stem from meat production? Loglisci of The Center for a Livable Future says it's hard to pinpoint. "As far as I know, no one has crunched the numbers to determine a comparable GHG emissions number for U.S. livestock," he writes.

Working with a Johns Hopkins researcher, Loglisci compiled some rough numbers and came out with an estimate of about 9 percent--half of the global FAO number cited by Klein, but three times the figure pushed by Boyle. "And in real numbers, not percentages, U.S. livestock production's GHG contribution could still be the largest in the world," Loglisci writes.

So, yes, Ezra Klein was right--there's a strong case for eating less meat.

Related Links:

Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Grist Exclusive: Will Whole Foods’ new mobile slaughterhouses squeeze small farmers?

While climate change legislation works its way toward 60 votes in the Senate, President Obama's EPA has been quietly working on some serious revisions to the guidelines it uses to conduct cost-benefit analysis.  Tweaks they might make to the powerful but low-profile Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses could have major impacts on the environment and could spur greenhouse gas reductions if the Senate fails to take action. 

The Guidelines is little known outside of EPA, but used regularly by the agency to design every major environmental regulation.  Before any rule is adopted, it must go through an economic analysis according to the Guidelines.  In the past thirty years, cost-benefit analysis has been often used with an industry bias, weighing the costs of action more heavily than the benefits.  The result is that too often, regulators end up erring on the side of not addressing environmental problems. 

The draft changes to the Guidelines are under discussion now and will hopefully be adopted this fall.  These revisions would create a major shift in the status quo at EPA, ensuring more balanced cost-benefit analysis and leading to stronger levels of environmental regulation.  Here is a breakdown of the four most significant changes being considered:   

1. Stop Inflating Compliance Costs:  Too often, the compliance costs of regulations are over-estimated because worst case scenarios are used to judge how business will be affected.  Industry innovation of new, low-cost solutions are not considered so the proposed regulation seems more expensive.  The new Guidelines would clarify how environmental regulations can lead to innovations that significantly reduce compliance costs over time.

2.  Focus on Climate Change:  The old Guidelines focused on "traditional" environmental problems like smoke stack emissions but failed to address the complexities of relatively new problems, such as climate change.  The new version would zero-in on these newer problems as the preeminent environmental threats.

3. Measure Ecological Consequences: In the past, the full range of indirect environmental implications of its regulations, especially when it came to climate change, were often ignored. This creates a serious imbalance because the indirect costs of a regulation to industry are considered.  The new recommendations warn analysts that focusing only on impacts that can be monetized will often skew towards under-regulation.

4. Look at Under-Regulation:  Corrections in the Guidelines would require not only cost-benefit analysis of environmental protections, but also deregulation.  This is a major shift.  During the Bush Administration, deregulation of everything from air quality controls to mining practices as well as voluntary (read unenforceable) "solutions" to environmental problems went without any economic analysis.  Under the new version of the Guidelines, this would not stand; the agency would have to justify their weakening actions with as much rigor as it has to justify its proactive measures. 

The combined effect of these changes would be a significantly more balanced approach to the way environmental regulations are judged.  They will bring a much needed equilibrium to the cost and benefit sides of the balance sheets and remove economically unjustified impediments to rules. 

When used correctly, cost-benefit analysis is a friend to green advocates.  There are some who wish that regulations didn't have to go through an economic test; that agencies could institute new rules without justifying them in terms of dollars and cents.  But ensuring that regulations pass cost-benefit muster reduces the risk of serious backlash and prevents environmentalists from getting clobbered as insensitive to the costs of environmental action. 

Rather than focus on eliminating cost-benefit analysis, it would be better to work on improving it-for example, there were no recommendations to change how the agency deals with "discounting" benefits for future generations, a practice which can skew regulations designed to avoid passing catastrophic risks to our children.  While the proposed changes to the Guidelines are a good start, there is significant progress to be made.

But more than any other reason, greens should advocate for correcting the imbalances in the cost-benefit process because when conducted fairly, the numbers are often on their side.  By revising the Guidelines, the EPA is showing an awareness of the fact that economic analysis often justifies strong environmental rules.  Environmentalists should be paying close attention. 

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The coal industry got a lot of goodies in the House-passed energy and climate bill, but it's pressing for even more in the Senate version.

At a Senate hearing on the future of coal hosted earlier this week by Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), representatives from utilities and coal companies told lawmakers what they want out of climate and energy legislation: more handouts and looser standards.

Coal boosters have long argued that "clean coal" technology -- carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) -- is just around the corner (despite plenty of arguments to the contrary). Says the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity on its website, "The technology isn’t 20 years away—some of it is here today."

But at the hearing on Wednesday, industry reps argued that CCS is still more than a decade from viability and therefore a climate bill shouldn't demand too many emissions cuts too soon.

"I don't think CCS will be widely deployed until 2020 or after," said Chris Hobson, senior vice president of research and environmental affairs at Southern Company, the fourth largest utility company in the U.S. The House bill, he said, includes "targets and timetables that are in advance of the [industry's] abilities." He called for a lowering of the bill's near-term emissions targets, which currently require a 17 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2020.

Hobson also said that Southern wants to see an upper limit on the price of carbon (often called a "safety valve" or "off-ramp" that would kick in if the price hits a certain level), and said the free allocation of pollution permits should be phased out more slowly than in the House bill.

Steve Winberg, vice president of research and development at CONSOL Energy Inc., a major coal producer, echoed those points. CCS "won't be deployed to sufficient extent by 2020," he said. He argued that the House bill is the "wrong template" to use, and the Senate should take its time crafting legislation to account for the "enormous shortcomings" of the House bill.

The fact that CCS is far from ready for prime time is all the more reason for it to get much more government funding, the industry reps reason. They say the House bill doesn't provide enough support for CCS, even though it designates $60 billion for research and development of the technology, in addition to $1 billion per year for CCS demonstration and deployment, funded by a fee on consumers of fossil-based electricity. The House bill would also reward early movers on CCS with bonus emission permits.

But at the hearing, the industry reps said they want more money to develop and deploy large-scale CCS projects in the near term, more money for longer-term pilot projects, more money to explore potential sites for CCS, and more money for the construction of piping systems to transport carbon dioxide to storage sites.

Granted, some important players in the coal sector are generally supportive of the House bill. United Mine Workers of America spokesperson Phil Smith said last month, "the amount of money dedicated to coal in [the Waxman-Markey] bill is remarkable, and the future of coal will be intact." Duke Energy and Alstom (which was also represented at this week's hearing) are both members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which helped craft the House bill. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who led the charge to get coal-friendly provisions into the House bill, proudly declared that the legislation would lead to "increased coal use" once CCS technology is in wide use.

But Wednesday's hearing made it clear that powerful coal producers and users are at least as determined as environmental advocates to get a better deal from the Senate than they did from the House.

Related Links:

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Prologue to Copenhagen

Soil carbon—a blind spot in the debate on carbon

A coalition of 47 environment, science, and faith-based groups have sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to pursue a goal of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celcius in upcoming international meetings.

"Failure to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius will have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable nations and communities and will dramatically increase the need for adaptation in the future," they write.

The groups include those on the left side of the green spectrum like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, as well as more moderate groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. The letter represents a notable show of unity between groups currently at odds over climate legislation -- Greenpeace and FOE opposed the bill that passed the House last week, arguing that it is too weak, while EDF and NRDC were key players in brokering the deal.

The organizations call on Obama to endorse the 2-degree threshold next month in Italy at the G8 Summit and the Major Economies Forum on Climate and Energy, to set the playing field for the global climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December. The groups note that 124 countries have agreed on the 2-degree limit, and that the goal is endorsed in the House climate bill.

Here's the letter, and the full list of signatories:

Groups signing the letter:

1 Sky
ActionAid USA
Avaaz.org
CARE
Center for International Environmental Law
Center for Biological Diversity
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Network International
Climate Solutions
Climate Law & Policy Project
Conservation International
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
EcoEquity
Education for Global Warming Solutions
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Energy Action
Environment Northeast
Environment America
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Law & Policy Center
Fresh Energy
Friends of the Earth
Green For All
Greenpeace
ICLEI-USA
Institute for Policy Studies
Interfaith Power and Light
International Forum on Globalization
International Rivers
League of Conservation Voters
National Audubon Society
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Oceana
Oil Change International
Oxfam America
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Pew Environment Group
Sierra Club
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Sustainable Obtainable Solutions
The Nature Conservancy
Union of Concerned Scientists
US Climate Action Network
World Wildlife Fund

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Prologue to Copenhagen

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday that it will grant a waiver for California and 13 other states to set automobile emission standards that are higher than national ones -- at least for the next two years.

"The waiver affirms California's authority to set the standards for the cleanest cars in the nation and recognizes the ability of forward-thinking states to continue to adopt them," said California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols in a statement celebrating the announcement.

The Bush administration denied California's waiver request last year, but Obama directed the EPA to reconsider almost immediately after he took office.

The waiver lets California (and the other states that have chosen to follow its lead) move forward with its emission standards for the model years 2009 to 2016. But in practical terms, that won't mean a lot, as the Obama administration recently announced a new national standard that mirrors California's proposed standard. As part of the deal worked out by the Obama team, California agreed to abide by the new federal rules for model years 2012 to 2016, and automakers agreed to drop their lawsuits against the state. The new federal rules call for an average annual fuel-economy increase of 5 percent per year, bringing cars up to 39 miles per gallon and light trucks to 30 mpg by 2016.

An EPA official told reporters on Tuesday that the waiver will allow California to have its own program until 2012, when the national program kicks in. But given the tight time frame between now and the release of 2012 model-year cars, it's unlikely the state will take action ahead of the national rules. Also, California probably won't want to upset the hard-won deal reached with the Obama admin and automakers.

While the granting of the waiver isn't expected to lead to emission reductions beyond those already queued up by the Obama team, it does restore the interpretation of the Clean Air Act that was in place until the Bush administration. The Clean Air Act allows California to petition the EPA for permission to set standards higher than federal ones. The state's requests were traditionally granted -- up until last year. Today's move reaffirms California's special consideration. It also opens the door for the state to set tougher standards for 2017 and beyond.

The Clean Air Act allows states to follow either national standards or California's standards. Thirteen states have chosen to follow California: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

"Congress recognized that California could serve as a pioneer and a laboratory for the nation in setting new motor vehicle emission standards," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote in the decision. "Congress intentionally structured this waiver provision [in the Clean Air Act] to restrict and limit EPA's ability to deny a waiver, and did this to ensure that California had broad discretion in selecting the means it determined best to protect the health and welfare of its citizens."

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger applauded the EPA's decision. "After being asleep at the wheel for over two decades, the federal government has finally stepped up and granted California its nation-leading tailpipe emissions waiver," he said in a statement. "This decision is a huge step for our emerging green economy that will create thousands of new jobs and bring Californians the cars they want while reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Related Links:

December 19—the day after COP15

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

The progressive activist group MoveOn is trying to rally its 5 million members behind an aggressive campaign to strengthen the climate and energy bill that passed the House last week.

If at least two-thirds of voting members consent, the group will begin a "full-court press to fix the bill, and turn up the heat on senators who might be tempted to side with Big Oil and Coal," it said in an email blast on Monday. The group notes that the bill as currently drafted would repeal a portion of the Clean Air Act that allows the U.S. EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, and argues that the legislation "doesn't do nearly enough to shift America to renewable energy -- so instead of a boom in solar and wind, the bill locks us into dirty coal power for another generation."

Here's the letter:

Related Links:

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Since the beginning of climate change legislation this session in Congress it has been clear that big agriculture would not be a part of a cap and trade program.  Yet, while the Waxman Markey bill has been making its way through Congress, the EPA has also been pushing forward its own agenda of climate related regulations, including the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from factory farms.  Yet, yesterday the House Appropriations Committee undermined this progressive proposed regulation by passing the 2010 Interior and Environment spending bill. An amendment in the bill will prevent the EPA from requiring factory farms to report their GHG emissions--a move that represents a blatant handout to large factory farms.

While climate legislation stalls through Congress, the EPA proposed rule aims to establish at least the basis for regulating GHG emissions- knowing how many we produce and where they come from.  Two weeks ago the comment period ended for the Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, which would require American industries to report their GHG emissions, over a threshold of 25,000 tons.  Among the highlights of the proposed rule was the requirement that manure management be considered a reporting category.  As such, large scale concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) more commonly known as factory farms, would be required to report their emissions if they reached the 25,000 ton threshold.  According to the EPA the number of CAFOs in the U.S. that reached this amount was only around 50 of the largest, most intensive facilities in the country.

There have been a lot of questions floating around as to why Americans should care about livestock poop, particularly in the context of climate change and GHG emissions.  While it is little discussed, it is actually quite a significant contributor to GHG emissions.  First and foremost- animal manure and livestock produce methane and nitrous oxide, which are about 23 and 300 times respectively stronger than carbon dioxide.  According to the EPA GHG Inventory, manure is the 5th largest source of methane and the 4th largest source of nitrous oxide in the U.S.  It results in more GHG emissions per year than all cement production and more than twice as many emissions as waste incineration and natural gas systems in the U.S.  It should also be mentioned that enteric fermentation-gases produced from livestock-is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.  Combined, manure and enteric fermentation produce about as many GHG emissions as the entire commercial sector's burning of fossil fuel in the United States.  The EPA did not require that enteric fermentation be considered a reporting category in their proposed rule.

The way in which CAFOs pool their manure together is a large part of the problem here.  When stored in pits and lagoons as is typical on factory farms, the manure breaks down anaerobically, in the absence of oxygen, which exacerbates methane emissions.  The EPA has acknowledged that when manures are distributed on pastures as would be typical in a grass-fed animal system, methane production is limited.  Thus, there are proven ways to reduce methane emissions in manure management.

But with the passage of the House Appropriations amendment last night, there may not even be the chance to attempt to reduce GHG emissions from factory farms.  Representative Dicks (D-WA) stated, "A facility of that magnitude and size can well afford to at least report in what the level of methane is," Dicks said. "I think this is something we need to know. Methane is one of the most important gases that we have to deal with if we're going to deal with this issue." Well said.

By preventing the EPA from collecting data from manure systems, the House Appropriations committee is telling the American people that they aren't serious about climate change or the health of rural communities and farmworkers, who must live with terrible odors and noxious gases associated with such facilities.  What is especially disheartening about the move is that it would prevent a much needed better understanding of livestock and manure emissions that would help foster scientific research and effective methods for reducing such emissions.  If Congress is serious about climate change then we need the data to understand our emissions, which will only happen for livestock and manure if the amendment is removed before the final version of the bill.

Related Links:

EPA punts on raising ethanol “blend wall”

The Localization of Agriculture

Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?

The "cash for clunkers" bill is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, and he's expected to sign it enthusiastically.

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden personally lobbied senators to support the bill, helping stave off a Republican-led effort to kill it. The bill ultimately passed the Senate on Thursday as part of a large war-spending package. The House passed the "cash for clunkers" bill last week.

The legislation puts $1 billion toward vouchers for drivers who trade in older cars for new ones that get slightly better gas mileage; the whole plan is expected to cost $4 billion, so lawmakers will have to come up with additional money if they want to keep it going for a full year, as intended. The bill is expected to subsidize the purchase up to one million new vehicles.

"This is a bill that saves jobs and helps small businesses affected by the economic downturn, all with the added benefit of helping the environment," said Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who sponsored the measure in the Senate.

Enviros are much less enthused, noting that the bill would subsidize the purchase of new vehicles that are only marginally more efficient than the ones they replace.

Under the program, drivers will be able to trade in vehicles of model year 1984 or later that are currently in use, and the old cars will be crushed or otherwise permanently removed from the roads. To qualify as a "clunker," a vehicle has to average 18 miles per gallon or less. For cars, drivers could get a $3,500 subsidy for purchasing a new model that gets at least 22 mpg or 4 mpg more than the old one, or $4,500 for a new car that gets at least 10 mpg more. For light trucks and SUVs, drivers could get $3,500 for a new model that averages at least 2 mpg more than the old one, or $4,500 for 5 mpg more.

Those are pretty low standards considering that the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy rules will require cars to get 39 mpg and light trucks to get 30 mpg by 2016.

So while the bill will give a boost to the beleaguered auto industry, it won't do much to lower greenhouse-gas emissions or the nation's dependence on oil.

Related Links:

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The second round of this year's climate negotiations have wrapped up in Bonn, Germany, and government negotiators are digging in to their positions, making the chances of signing any global climate deal in Copenhagen this December - let alone a fair deal - increasingly slim.

A snapshot at the midpoint on the road to Copenhagen reveals that much has stayed the same since last time parties were assembled here in March. Two major hurdles block forward movement in reaching an agreement: the lack of political will by industrialized countries to commit to deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions, and resistance on their part to deliver comprehensive financing to help poorer countries deal with locked-in climate change and a shift to ecologically sustainable development.

What's beginning to change with this round of talks is how developing countries and climate justice movements frame both of these issues.

The Climate Debt Must be Repaid

According to a growing number of governments and civil society organizations the developed world owes the developing world a twofold climate debt. The greenhouse gases that rich countries have released to date directly translate into physical impacts and financial losses in poorer countries. At a technical briefing arranged by UN officials on historical responsibility for climate change, Bolivian ambassador Angelica Navarro noted a loss of 4 to 17% of GDP each year in her country as a result of changing weather patterns. These impacts constitute an "adaptation debt." And to pay it off, those who caused the problem must fully compensate developing countries for the effects of their emissions.

A second debt - an "emissions debt" - is a bit more complicated, but no less real. It's based on the scientific fact that the atmosphere has a limited capacity to absorb greenhouse gases before reaching the tipping point of irreversible climate chaos - and on the principle that every person, no matter where he or she lives, has an equal right to the remaining atmospheric space.

The South Centre, a Geneva-based intergovernmental organization, estimates that the space left can hold up to 600 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions - and the people in industrialized countries have already used more than their fair share. With less than 20% of the world's population, they have emitted almost three quarters of all climate change gases. According to Martin Khor, director of the South Centre, if rich countries don't radically change course they will have used up 240 gigatons of the atmospheric space by 2050, although based on population their allocation should only be 125 gigatons.

In other words, developed countries have taken out a loan of 115 gigatons of carbon dioxide, and developing countries are asking for it back. As people in poorer nations continue to improve their quality of life, fight for access to electricity, and grow their domestic industry they will need this space. The idea that poorer countries shouldn't use the atmospheric commons to develop is not only unjust, it's unrealistic. Failing to take this reality into account at the negotiations will doom the people and economies of all nations.

How Low Can You Go?

The implications for developed countries here in Bonn and on the road to Copenhagen -where world leaders are supposed to reach an agreement that will pick up where the Kyoto Protocol leaves off in 2012 - are profound. To repay their emissions debt they must commit to drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries are calling for cuts of 45 to almost 80 percent from 1990 levels in the next 10 years. Some researchers are saying that to avoid a climate catastrophe reductions from rich countries actually have to plunge to 100 percent - and then go negative by the middle of the century.

Even with a clean energy and land use revolution, it's close to impossible for countries like the U.S. to meet such ambitious targets. The balance of their climate debt, then, will have to be repaid in a transfer of money and clean technology to developing countries so that they can create new economies that are low-carbon and still meet the needs of their citizens. The price tag will be along the lines of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Industrialized countries have balked at the sum, but their obligation to deliver this support is already enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a global agreement which even the U.S. signed. And if the bank bailouts have taught us anything, it's that where there's a political will, there's a way to mobilize trillions of dollars.

Meena Raman, researcher and legal advisor to the Third World Network and former Chair of Friends of the Earth International, called the technical briefing and the introduction of the climate debt concept "one of the most important moments in the history of the Convention." But if climate talks in Copenhagen are to yield a just and effective result, the conversation must move beyond concepts to commitments from nations with the greatest historical responsibility.

Related Links:

Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

If the earth was a car, it would come with an operating instructions not to drive faster than 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, like an unruly teenager, humanity – with the United States in the drivers seat – has already revved up the engine and broken all speed limits – we’re speeding at 387 ppm and our tires are already smoking. Unless we start breaking, we’re full speed ahead towards engine meltdown in the scarily near future.

The final plenary session today at the Bonn climate talks drove this point home. As the draft “shared vision” language was discussed (the language that will eventually form the preamble to the agreement) various country delegations put their positions on the table. While the Alliance of Small Island States pleaded for immediate action to keep their nations from sinking into the ocean by adopting clear targets to keep the world below 2 degrees of warming by enshrining science-based targets in the text: a 45 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and more than 90 percent by 2050 (from 1990 levels). The EU is halfway there, suggesting a goal of 50 percent (from 1990 levels) by 2050. The United States, however, gave a disappointingly Bush-esque statement calling for a purely aspirational vision containing no clear target for reductions.

The negotiations here are the world’s best hope to prevent total climate meltdown in our lifetimes. The science is clear – and millions of people around the world are asking for action. With the conclusion of this round of talks, negotiators have succeeded in creating a legal draft text that will be refined at the next round of talks in Bonn in August – now up to 200 pages from the original 50 created in Poznan ­- but we still are missing the critical fuel that we will need to continue the process all the way to Copenhagen: the political will to actually achieve emissions reductions, particularly on the part of the United States. We’re also missing adequate traffic rules – the safeguards that will ensure that whatever else we do, we will make sure that we don’t sacrifice biodiversity or indigenous cultures on the way to saving the climate.

As we move towards Copenhagen, the world needs to hear President Obama clearly commit, “the level of our ambition must rise to match the urgency of the challenge that is facing the world,” and give the U.S. delegation the mandate it needs for a successful deal in Copenhagen. It’s clear that if the United States chooses to lead, other recalcitrant countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia will be more likely to follow.   

In many ways, the U.S. is in the drivers seat. If we aren’t going to drive the world off a cliff, we have to learn to drive more carefully.  We’ve already gotten so many speeding tickets – from the financial meltdown to the food crisis.  Obama has been doing a good job patching up some of our reckless driving injuries, but climate change is and will be different. Mother Nature is one car that we can’t afford to total.   

Related Links:

Prelude to COP15: Climate Justice actions sweep the US before Copenhagen talks

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Treat energy efficiency like a utility

I don’t think that NGOs were ever terribly confident about the dedication of countries to stopping climate change, but listening to conversations here at Bonn there seems to be an increasing anger at the determinedly short memories and short-sightedness of developed countries. I am hearing more and more at press conferences, side events and in hallways that developed countries from Japan to the E.U. are failing to really seriously invest in the task at hand; reducing emissions – instead they seem to be trying their best to do as little as possible while getting the most possible credit for their actions. And that’s not even counting the U.S.

By far, the majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution have come from developed countries. Of these countries, the U.S. is by far the worst. A recent World Resources Institute study finds that in the past 150 years, the United States has emitted more greenhouse gas emissions than any other nation in the world, accounting for 29 percent of the world’s total emissions since the mid-1800s.

If the planet’s atmosphere has a lot less space for continued dumping of carbon emissions - and it does - our history of huge cumulative emissions is a big part of the reason why.  There’s a strong sentiment that this historical burden for creating the current climate crisis must be considered, and listening to a wide range of developing country representatives from governments, as well as youth, indigenous groups and others here at the Bonn climate negotiations, it’s obvious that stronger U.S. leadership and commitment is still desperately needed to mobilize effective global responses to prevent dangerous global warming.

Despite this, developed countries are not only failing to acknowledge their responsibility to do more to reduce their massive share of world emissions, they are actively seeking loopholes to shirk their responsibility. Japan yesterday announced a target commitment of an 8 percent emission reduction by 2020, only 2 points over their current Kyoto target of 6 percent. The E.U. finance ministers estimated this week that billions of Euros are needed to stop climate change, but here at the negotiations, their team is more concerned with avoiding any accurate accounting of their emissions from forestry and agriculture than actually committing to concrete mitigation or reduction targets. The U.S. is sticking to its Waxman-Markey framework and is actively avoiding any real cuts in coal emissions (our largest source of greenhouse gas emissions) instead attempting to frame our heavy coal usage as a way to finance forest preservation through dodgy offsets.

The need for serious reduction commitments from the top polluting countries is becoming more and more urgent. The UNFCCC Secretariat on Monday estimated that with the current proposed commitments on the table, the world is headed for 4 degrees celsius (7.2 F) of warming – a scary level of climate change at which the world will see a frightening rise in sea level, massive species extinction, drought and even more severe weather events.

We can’t just pass the buck on our responsibility to climate change. Developed countries – especially the US -- do need to own up to the fact that we are primarily responsible for climate change. It’s time to start thinking long term and clean up after our own mess.  And, this leadership could provide exactly what’s needed to break the gridlock and backsliding countries are in. It just might also create the conditions that developing nations – including China – are saying they need to see to take on their own emissions targets reductions.

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Treat energy efficiency like a utility

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

A proven climate solution. Not since Earl Butz's famous "hedgerow to hedgerow" comment of the 1970s have America's farmers been at such a turning point. Food and farming policy in the United States is largely determined by the Farm Bill, behemoth legislation that comes around once every five years.  Yet, the current climate legislation--The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)--offers an unprecedented opportunity to rethink the way America farms. 

Since the start of ACES, agriculture interests have had an unspoken, yet powerful voice in the bill. Ag was explicitly exempted from the "capped" sector, which meanth that from the beginning, agriculture was always intended to receive offset benefits in ACES.  But the question remains whether agricultural offsets will be awarded to the types of practices and systems that are scientifically proven to actually reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequester carbon.

With the bill now firmly in the grasp of Chairman Peterson of the House Agriculture Committee it will surely be riddled with agriculture handouts when it emerges. But while Peterson may attempt to load the bill, the quality--not the quantity--of such offsets will determine how effective the legislation is at reducing GHG emissions.  Agricultural offsets and programs that fail to recognize the proven ability of organic practices and systems to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon will offer few real benefits for the climate, the environment, or a progressive farm future.  

An increasing amount of peer-reviewed science demonstrates the true ability of organic practices and systems to not only sequester more carbon than conventional and no-till agriculture (yes, even no-till, the industry's exalted climate change solution), but to inherently produce fewer GHG emissions overall.  This is a point I can't emphasize enough-climate legislation can not simply hope to sequester its way out of a looming environmental crisis.  Unless ACES makes actual and verified reductions in GHG emissions it will be ineffective.  And the best agricultural solution that has the science to back up such reductions is organic agriculture, with agroecological practices including abstaining from synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, cover cropping, pasture-based animal production, incorporation of compost and manures into soils, and prevention of fallow fields. 

So what does the science say?  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization concluded "[w]ith lower energy inputs, organic systems contribute less to GHG emissions and have a greater potential to sequester carbon in biomass than conventional systems." Research published by Pelletier et al. last year in Environmental Management found that organic cropping systems required half the fossil fuel inputs and generated three-fourths the GHG emissions of conventional agriculture.  Additional studies shared similar results, largely because organic agriculture abstains from using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which require vast quantities of fossil fuels to produce.  If we are really aiming for "energy independence" why aren't we directing our farm policies to organic practices?

Still more scientific studies are finding that organic pasture raised animals offer a variety of climate benefits.  The United Nations estimates that animal production contributes nearly one fifth of all global GHG emissions, making it not only a significant source of emissions but a significant opportunity for reductions and mitigation.  Research by Flessa et. al. (2002) published in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment suggested that transitioning to pasture agriculture is the single best way to cut GHG emissions in animal production.  Additional studies (Boadi et.al., 2004 and DeRamus et. al., 2003) determined that feeding livestock on pasture compared to feedlot diets usually consisting of corn and soy reduced methane emissions about 20%. 

The EPA has also determined that when manures are stored or treated in liquid storage systems commonly found on factory farms, the decomposition of manure produces great amounts of methane, unlike when manure is handled as a solid or deposited on pasture, range or paddock lands.  Manures spread appropriately on pastures and paddocks produce minimal amounts of methane.  Research has also documented that manure stores on conventional farms emitted about twenty-five percent more methane gas than organic farms.

So that's the first part- inherently fewer emissions because of the way that organic agriculture abstains from chemicals and synthetic ingredients and utilizes natural amendments which help store carbon.  This leads me to my next point- sequestration.  It's true that all agriculture can sequester carbon, but if it's doing so while simultaneously being doused in chemical fertilizers and pesticides the benefits are quickly lost.  The new current trend promoted by the agricultural industry is no-till or conservation agriculture, which leaves crop residues on the surface and cuts down on tilling the soil.  The supposed perks of no-till include increased sequestration, but recent evidence suggests otherwise.

The dirty little secret of no-till agriculture is that it increases pesticide use and also appears to increase emissions of nitrous oxide--310 times as strong as carbon dioxide.  In fact, the USDA acknowledged last year, "By eliminating some or all of the tillage practices under conservation tillage, growers may rely more heavily on the use of herbicides for weed control." Additional studies have concluded the same.  And, increasing research suggests that under a variety of soil and climate conditions no-till agriculture actually increases nitrous oxide emissions.  This is coupled with numerous studies including Baker et.al in 2007 that suggest no-till actually doesn't sequester more carbon than conventional systems.

Recently though, USDA scientists concluded a nine year study comparing organic, conventional and no-till agriculture for sequestration and found the organic production system sequestered more carbon.  Scientists noted, "Despite the use of tillage, soil combustible carbon and nitrogen concentrations were higher at all depth intervals to 30cm in organic agriculture compared with that in all other systems."  Further, the scientists concluded that, "these results suggest that organic agriculture can provide greater long-term soil benefits than conventional no-till, despite the use of tillage in organic agriculture."

Thursday the House Agriculture Committee holds a hearing to review ACES, providing a key opportunity to recognize and act on the science behind the benefit of organic agriculture for climate change.  Yet, the current panel line-up does not seem promising- representatives include the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Corn Growers, National Milk Producers Federation, and even The Fertilizer Institute.  Where are the NGOs?  Where are the representatives for small family farm producers?  Where are the organic farmers? 

Progressive climate change legislation is no longer progressive when it perpetuates and rewards industrial agriculture that has been the main source of agricultural emissions for decades.  Failure to include organic practices and certified organic producers in ACES will set back our goal of reducing GHGs in the present and prevent America's farmers from economically transitioning to ecological farming.  It's not too late for the House Agriculture Committee and Chairman Peterson to realize this and set us on future farming course that not only feeds our country but cleans up the planet too.  

Related Links:

EPA punts on raising ethanol “blend wall”

The Localization of Agriculture

Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?