In 2002, I had the honor of attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa. This UN Conference brought the world together 10 years later to follow up on the historic 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Without getting into too many details here, many considered the WSSD a disappointment--a missed opportunity to make meaningful progress on a host of important environmental issues. The global community kicked the can down the road.
Twelve years later, the world has gathered again--this time in New York City. Yes, there are still some people making excuses, claiming that Climate Change is not real, that humans cannot possibly be responsible for changing the temperature, weather, climate of the entire planet. These Climate Deniers are a small but very vocal group that still have tremendous political influence in the United States. Fortunately, the rest of the world is not listening. Countries from Germany to China have realized: 1) the science speaks for itself, 2) this is happening now, and 3) we've already missed the chance to mitigate some harm. We'd better act NOW or else the harm will be a whole lot worse. Some clever people have also realized there's money to be made in new technology, and this doesn't need to be a "jobs vs. the environment" debate.
So, what are some news organizations most worried about? Whether or not a football player committed a crime (pick one), whether President Obama was disrespectful with his latte-salute, or whether one of the Kardashians or Jenners or whomever they are did X (pick anything).
Dear readers, this is all just one big distraction from things that really matter. We are facing real problems, and we're (humans) the cause of these problems. Today in Oklahoma, some guy cut off a woman's head apparently due to misguided religious beliefs. Wildfires burning near Lake Tahoe were started by an arsonist. ISIS and the Taliban are committing genocide and creating havoc in the Middle East while Putin is still making a mess in Ukraine. Perhaps most alarming is that ebola could actually turn into a global pandemic--in large part due to misinformation, lack of education, superstitions...and the fact that the global community is pretty much failing to fund any sort of meaningful response.
Really? Really?!? I look at my little boy sleeping peacefully as I write this. I wonder what world we're going to leave him? I am afraid it won't be nearly as nice as the world I was born into, and I hate that we as a country, as a species, can't figure out that we're wasting precious time on nonsense.
So, if you've taken the time to read this far, I ask you please--do this one thing. Make the world slightly better with your time here. I don't care what it is. Add beauty through art or music. Waste less. Be kinder. Invent something that makes things better. Learn something new, and share it. Help underprivileged kids. Just. Do. Something. Good.
And me? I'm about to start really educating myself much more thoroughly on Green House Gas emissions, renewable energy, and some related topics so I can take a more active role in this area. I will also be sharing these new insights in my blog. (Of course, if I happen to get involved in a dog-bite case, I may still talk about that too...) Twelve years ago I flew all the way to South Africa to try and make things a little bit better. I think now it is time to finally make good on that promise.
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2014
Friday, September 20, 2013
Something New
Six months--how they go by in a flash! Well, I may have taken a break from blogging, but the world is still moving. Happily, today's news indicates we're moving a step forward into the 21st century. The EPA just released NEW proposed rules for carbon limits for NEW power plants. This is good news. These rules would make it extremely difficult to get a new coal-fired plant approved, due to the amount of CO2 released from the burning of coal. Natural gas facilities, and of course renewables (wind, solar, etc) would have a much easier time passing the standards. The new rule caps CO2 emissions at 1100 lbs of CO2 emitted for each megawatt hour of electricity produced.
Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.
Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.
Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.
The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.
Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.
Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.
Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.
The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
SMART Use of Transportation Dollars
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990. One of the goals of these amendments was to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by reducing vehicle tailpipe emissions. It was determined that one of the best ways to reduce these emissions was to link air quality and transportation planning. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) was implemented to support projects that simultaneously relieved transportation congestion and improved air quality.
CMAQ is a potential source of funding not only for light-rail projects, but also other alternative transportation projects, such as bicycle lanes, pedestrian walking, hiking, or running trails, etc. Often CMAQ funds are one of the only sources that proponents of these pedestrian or bicycle based projects have available to them.
Recently, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) awarded the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART) $6.6M in CMAQ funds to purchase additional rail cars. While this is consistent with the type of projects usually funded by CMAQ, there has been some minor controversy. The heart of the issue appears to be how quickly the funding request was railroaded through the approval process. Other regional groups (such as the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition) also dependent upon CMAQ funds for their projects were not given much warning or opportunity to prepare their objections, suggestions, or alternatives.
Proponents of the deal say that the rush was necessary because there were $10M in overall funds that would have been lost if SMART had not acted before the end of the year. The rail cars needed to be ordered, and if they had not acted quickly the window of opportunity would have been pushed back several years.
No one benefits if potential funding is lost because of a failure to act. Overall, light rail projects and other pedestrian or cycling projects work best when developed together. While it is a shame that this had to be pushed through at the last minute, to me it still seems smarter to act than to miss the opportunity entirely. Hopefully both groups will learn from this, and will plan ahead better to develop their mutual interests. With ever-tightening budgets and limited money available, groups like this need to maximize every dollar.
CMAQ is a potential source of funding not only for light-rail projects, but also other alternative transportation projects, such as bicycle lanes, pedestrian walking, hiking, or running trails, etc. Often CMAQ funds are one of the only sources that proponents of these pedestrian or bicycle based projects have available to them.
Recently, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) awarded the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART) $6.6M in CMAQ funds to purchase additional rail cars. While this is consistent with the type of projects usually funded by CMAQ, there has been some minor controversy. The heart of the issue appears to be how quickly the funding request was railroaded through the approval process. Other regional groups (such as the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition) also dependent upon CMAQ funds for their projects were not given much warning or opportunity to prepare their objections, suggestions, or alternatives.
Proponents of the deal say that the rush was necessary because there were $10M in overall funds that would have been lost if SMART had not acted before the end of the year. The rail cars needed to be ordered, and if they had not acted quickly the window of opportunity would have been pushed back several years.
No one benefits if potential funding is lost because of a failure to act. Overall, light rail projects and other pedestrian or cycling projects work best when developed together. While it is a shame that this had to be pushed through at the last minute, to me it still seems smarter to act than to miss the opportunity entirely. Hopefully both groups will learn from this, and will plan ahead better to develop their mutual interests. With ever-tightening budgets and limited money available, groups like this need to maximize every dollar.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Sandy's Surge Sloshes Superfund Sites
So called "Superstorm Sandy" has made all kinds of news of late. The images of devastation along the Eastern seaboard, particularly in New York and New Jersey captured worldwide attention, and even got President Barack Obama and the (Republican) governor of New Jersey working together for common cause, setting aside politics while they focused on the needs of the people harmed by this storm.
As flood waters recede, the problems are many: people displaced by the storm, homes ruined, other homes inhabitable because of lack of power, possible gas leaks, flood damage, etc. However, one insidious little side-effect has largely escaped the public's notice: raw sewage, and hazardous and toxic chemicals "freed" by the storm.
The eastern seaboard does not lack for Superfund sites, such as the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, or Staten Island's North Shore. Just as homes, businesses, and subways were being filled with seawater, so were these sites. As the flood waters receded, they took pollutants with them--although these pollutants were not necessarily washed out to sea. They were deposited wherever the water went--into homes, businesses, etc.
Now, as people look to return home, they have multiple issues facing them--not the least of which is, "when the seawater retreated, what got left behind?" Cleaning out rotted drywall and basements full of sand is bad enough, but what if the debris also contains raw sewage, neurotoxins such as lead and mercury, radioactive materials, or other carcinogens?
Suffice to say that clean up is going to be expensive, hazardous, and very uncertain for these property owners who literally may have no idea what they're returning to. When people discuss the "costs" associated with environmental protection, where are these costs accounted for? Who will have to pay for this bill, especially when the responsible party will be unknown, and the specific harm caused may be outside the property owner's insurance coverage?
As flood waters recede, the problems are many: people displaced by the storm, homes ruined, other homes inhabitable because of lack of power, possible gas leaks, flood damage, etc. However, one insidious little side-effect has largely escaped the public's notice: raw sewage, and hazardous and toxic chemicals "freed" by the storm.
The eastern seaboard does not lack for Superfund sites, such as the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, or Staten Island's North Shore. Just as homes, businesses, and subways were being filled with seawater, so were these sites. As the flood waters receded, they took pollutants with them--although these pollutants were not necessarily washed out to sea. They were deposited wherever the water went--into homes, businesses, etc.
Now, as people look to return home, they have multiple issues facing them--not the least of which is, "when the seawater retreated, what got left behind?" Cleaning out rotted drywall and basements full of sand is bad enough, but what if the debris also contains raw sewage, neurotoxins such as lead and mercury, radioactive materials, or other carcinogens?
Suffice to say that clean up is going to be expensive, hazardous, and very uncertain for these property owners who literally may have no idea what they're returning to. When people discuss the "costs" associated with environmental protection, where are these costs accounted for? Who will have to pay for this bill, especially when the responsible party will be unknown, and the specific harm caused may be outside the property owner's insurance coverage?
Monday, October 29, 2012
Climate Change 102: CA Water Issues
California has water issues. As a state, CA currently does not have enough water to meet all of our personal, agricultural, industrial, and recreational needs. We already import water from the Colorado River, and we have already drawn down our existing reservoirs in our underground aquifers to meet these needs. Probably none of this background comes as much of a surprise? Our water woes have been well-documented and publicized for decades, dating back to the days of Mulholland. The question is, what are we doing about it--and what does the future hold?
As I mentioned before, climate change has made predicting the future much more difficult. It used to be that historical models could be counted on to accurately predict what would happen in the future. Water planners have been able to rely on the concept of "stationarity": that you can use historical water flows to plan for future water availability. Sure, there have always been unusual events that happen once every 50 or 100 years, but our weather operated in a known range. This is no longer true. "Once in a lifetime" events now happen every 10 or 20 years. New and previously unforeseen events are occurring. We're in new territory, and although we have no crystal balls, we do have computer modeling. It allows us to make reasonable decisions on what might happen, and what is most likely to happen.
For example, the Department of Water Resources is expecting the water CA gets from the annual Sierra snowmelt to decrease by 25-40% in the next 50 years. Considering that this natural resource is an important source of water for CA in the late spring and summer months, DWR must decide not only how to replace this water supply, but also whether resources can/should be dedicated to capturing and retaining precipitation that may fall as rain (and quickly runs off) rather than slow-melting snow?
Further, what about sea-level rise? Sea levels have already risen over a foot in the last 50 years. They are expected to rise another foot by 2050. However, remember that slow but profound effect I mentioned before in the last post? Sea levels are projected to rise approximately 55 inches between 2050-2100! Imagine what this will do to low-lying areas such as Venice, Florida, New Orleans--and the Sacramento River delta. Literally thousands of acres of productive farmland could be inundated, and our existing levee system is currently not ready for sea-level rise of such magnitude. Further, salt water will encrouch up river many miles further inland, affecting fresh-water availability.
There are a few easy answers. For example, golf courses use (on average) over 300,000 gallons of fresh water a day. (Is the economic and/or recreational value of a golf course worth this cost in water resources?) We currently do very little with water recycling, and many of our reservoirs, pipelines, and other delivery systems are porous, leaky, or otherwise inefficient. We have made progress with low-flow shower heads and more efficient toilets. Much can still be done to improve our water infrastructure.
Unfortunately, although these answers will help, they will not begin to solve our water problems--especially for a state with a huge agricultural industry, and a population that is expected to increase another 10 million people by 2050. The good news, if there is good news, is that DWR is no longer using modeling based on historical averages, or wishful thinking. They're using the modern computer models to base their planning on the best science available, not history or hope. They have a hard task ahead, and unfortunately things may well get worse before they get better on this front. In the meantime--don't flush that toilet!
As I mentioned before, climate change has made predicting the future much more difficult. It used to be that historical models could be counted on to accurately predict what would happen in the future. Water planners have been able to rely on the concept of "stationarity": that you can use historical water flows to plan for future water availability. Sure, there have always been unusual events that happen once every 50 or 100 years, but our weather operated in a known range. This is no longer true. "Once in a lifetime" events now happen every 10 or 20 years. New and previously unforeseen events are occurring. We're in new territory, and although we have no crystal balls, we do have computer modeling. It allows us to make reasonable decisions on what might happen, and what is most likely to happen.
For example, the Department of Water Resources is expecting the water CA gets from the annual Sierra snowmelt to decrease by 25-40% in the next 50 years. Considering that this natural resource is an important source of water for CA in the late spring and summer months, DWR must decide not only how to replace this water supply, but also whether resources can/should be dedicated to capturing and retaining precipitation that may fall as rain (and quickly runs off) rather than slow-melting snow?
Further, what about sea-level rise? Sea levels have already risen over a foot in the last 50 years. They are expected to rise another foot by 2050. However, remember that slow but profound effect I mentioned before in the last post? Sea levels are projected to rise approximately 55 inches between 2050-2100! Imagine what this will do to low-lying areas such as Venice, Florida, New Orleans--and the Sacramento River delta. Literally thousands of acres of productive farmland could be inundated, and our existing levee system is currently not ready for sea-level rise of such magnitude. Further, salt water will encrouch up river many miles further inland, affecting fresh-water availability.
There are a few easy answers. For example, golf courses use (on average) over 300,000 gallons of fresh water a day. (Is the economic and/or recreational value of a golf course worth this cost in water resources?) We currently do very little with water recycling, and many of our reservoirs, pipelines, and other delivery systems are porous, leaky, or otherwise inefficient. We have made progress with low-flow shower heads and more efficient toilets. Much can still be done to improve our water infrastructure.
Unfortunately, although these answers will help, they will not begin to solve our water problems--especially for a state with a huge agricultural industry, and a population that is expected to increase another 10 million people by 2050. The good news, if there is good news, is that DWR is no longer using modeling based on historical averages, or wishful thinking. They're using the modern computer models to base their planning on the best science available, not history or hope. They have a hard task ahead, and unfortunately things may well get worse before they get better on this front. In the meantime--don't flush that toilet!
Climate Change 101
If you are reading this blog, or if you have listened to the news much in the past 20 years, you are probably already aware that there is a weather phenomenon known as Climate Change. Originally often referred to as Global Warming, climate change more accurately reflects the real-world consequence to humans.
As the planet warms, weather patterns become more severe. It may lead to hotter summers and drought. It may also lead to severe winter blizzards. Hurricanes, tornadoes and monsoons have more energy and are more frequent. In fact, the entire weather cycle has more energy overall, and all weather events become more pronounced.
Of course, depending on your source of news and your political leanings, you may not believe any of this is actually happening. Fortunately, most Americans, as with the vast majority of the world, now know something is amiss with our weather. The "controversy" over whether climate change is happening is largely a product of politics and fear-mongering. When 97% of the world's climate scientists agree with the U.S. Department of Defense, any practical debate of whether climate change is actually happening is essentially over. The debate still over WHY it is happening, how much of it is caused by humans and how much is naturally occurring, and what the consequences of this change will be is another story.
For long-term planning purposes including the investment of billions of dollars in infrastructure projects, we'd be crazy not to plan for certain known eventualities. Just as our military is making critical strategic decisions about how climate change will affect our ability to defend ourselves, our State and Federal planning boards must all make key decisions. Whether it is such projects as flood control in our rivers or coastal regions, planning and allocating water supplies, making improvements to our electrical grid, siting wind farms, protecting endangered or threatened species, locating crops, eradicating or minimizing the damage from agricultural pests, enacting fire suppression in our forests, or best determining how much CO2 can be released into the atmosphere, our governmental agencies must do their best to plan for effects that will not occur for twenty, fifty, perhaps even 100 years from now.
Modeling shows that the long-term effects of climate change have three very important components. First, they tend to be slow. Our planet is currently warmed from CO2 in the atmosphere that was released decades ago, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels today, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise for many years before the concentrations start to decrease. Second, these effects are profound. Although we cannot easily see them in our daily lives, the changes that have occurred over the last fifty years are dramatic. Whether it is the warming of the Earth as a whole, the dramatic warming of the North and South Pole, the migration of species to higher altitudes or different latitudes, the acidification of our oceans, coral reef bleaching, etc., the warming of our planet is affecting ecosystems world wide.
Perhaps the most important issue is that our computer modeling is imperfect. For example, 20 simulations of rainfall predicitions for California over the next 50 years may yield 1 result where California gets twice the rainfall that it has historically, 2 results where it gets less than half, and 17 results where CA gets 10-25% less. Which model is right? If you work for the Department of Water Resources, how do you plan your infrastructure projects? Does it make sense to plan for the worst-case scenario, or the scenario that is more statistically likely to happen? In this day of limited budgets and resources, can we afford to ignore the problem entirely, or just wish it away? In my next post, I will discuss some of the steps California is currently taking to prepare for its unknown water future.
As the planet warms, weather patterns become more severe. It may lead to hotter summers and drought. It may also lead to severe winter blizzards. Hurricanes, tornadoes and monsoons have more energy and are more frequent. In fact, the entire weather cycle has more energy overall, and all weather events become more pronounced.
Of course, depending on your source of news and your political leanings, you may not believe any of this is actually happening. Fortunately, most Americans, as with the vast majority of the world, now know something is amiss with our weather. The "controversy" over whether climate change is happening is largely a product of politics and fear-mongering. When 97% of the world's climate scientists agree with the U.S. Department of Defense, any practical debate of whether climate change is actually happening is essentially over. The debate still over WHY it is happening, how much of it is caused by humans and how much is naturally occurring, and what the consequences of this change will be is another story.
For long-term planning purposes including the investment of billions of dollars in infrastructure projects, we'd be crazy not to plan for certain known eventualities. Just as our military is making critical strategic decisions about how climate change will affect our ability to defend ourselves, our State and Federal planning boards must all make key decisions. Whether it is such projects as flood control in our rivers or coastal regions, planning and allocating water supplies, making improvements to our electrical grid, siting wind farms, protecting endangered or threatened species, locating crops, eradicating or minimizing the damage from agricultural pests, enacting fire suppression in our forests, or best determining how much CO2 can be released into the atmosphere, our governmental agencies must do their best to plan for effects that will not occur for twenty, fifty, perhaps even 100 years from now.
Modeling shows that the long-term effects of climate change have three very important components. First, they tend to be slow. Our planet is currently warmed from CO2 in the atmosphere that was released decades ago, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels today, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise for many years before the concentrations start to decrease. Second, these effects are profound. Although we cannot easily see them in our daily lives, the changes that have occurred over the last fifty years are dramatic. Whether it is the warming of the Earth as a whole, the dramatic warming of the North and South Pole, the migration of species to higher altitudes or different latitudes, the acidification of our oceans, coral reef bleaching, etc., the warming of our planet is affecting ecosystems world wide.
Perhaps the most important issue is that our computer modeling is imperfect. For example, 20 simulations of rainfall predicitions for California over the next 50 years may yield 1 result where California gets twice the rainfall that it has historically, 2 results where it gets less than half, and 17 results where CA gets 10-25% less. Which model is right? If you work for the Department of Water Resources, how do you plan your infrastructure projects? Does it make sense to plan for the worst-case scenario, or the scenario that is more statistically likely to happen? In this day of limited budgets and resources, can we afford to ignore the problem entirely, or just wish it away? In my next post, I will discuss some of the steps California is currently taking to prepare for its unknown water future.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Changing Public Perceptions of Climate Change
A new study from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University was just released last week. It appears that "a large and growing number of Americans" believe that global warming is affecting weather in the United States. This number is up 5% since March of 2012--from 69% to 74%.
Further, Americans were more likely to connect global warming to record high temperatures this summer, Americans said that climate change had made events such as the severe drought that struck the Midwest this summer worse, and Americans increasingly say that weather in the U.S. has been getting worse over the past several years.
I believe that too often laws and regulations are the result of politics, not sound science. Nevertheless, the public's willingness to accept or reject new environmental controls and standards strongly affects what laws/regulations may ultimately come to pass. Traditionally the American public has trailed other developed countries in accepting climate change as a real phenomenon. If public perception is indeed changing, we may be on the cusp of policy changes as well.
The report itself is far too long for this little blog. However, if you are interested in reading more:Click Here
Further, Americans were more likely to connect global warming to record high temperatures this summer, Americans said that climate change had made events such as the severe drought that struck the Midwest this summer worse, and Americans increasingly say that weather in the U.S. has been getting worse over the past several years.
I believe that too often laws and regulations are the result of politics, not sound science. Nevertheless, the public's willingness to accept or reject new environmental controls and standards strongly affects what laws/regulations may ultimately come to pass. Traditionally the American public has trailed other developed countries in accepting climate change as a real phenomenon. If public perception is indeed changing, we may be on the cusp of policy changes as well.
The report itself is far too long for this little blog. However, if you are interested in reading more:Click Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)