Living With Fluorescent Light (or No Light)

-
Aa
+
a
a
a

10 January 2008Andrew C. Revkin

Julie Scelfo, a reporter for our Home section, recently sent me a note saying she was eager to hear about people’s experiences with compact fluorescent bulbs and other low-energy lighting. I put up a post and Dot Earth readers responded in droves with comments about their good, bad, and ugly experiences. There is a strong sense that these bulbs are a transitional technology, but that lighting will be less and less of a drain on the grid after a century of incandescent convenience.

Her story, drawing on the experiences of many Dot Earthers, is online here, and you can see photographs of four of your peers from Dot Earth in a slide show describing homeowners’ experiences with low-energy technology. Read more …

traffic jam in californiaFreeway traffic on near Los Angeles. (Credit: Monica Almeida/The New York Times)

My colleague covering the nation’s environment, Felicity Barringer, sent this note from California, where it seems some clarity is emerging in arguments over who gets to limit greenhouse gases from vehicles — the states or the United States.

Felicity writes:

Ever since the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Stephen G. Johnson, denied California’s request for a waiver allowing it to put new controls on greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and light trucks, the agency has repeatedly claimed that its new federal standard is more aggressive than California’s plan.

Now California has shot back and appears to have set the record straight.

Here’s how this fuel economy spat played out. Read more …

 

Richard C. J. SomervilleDr. Richard C. J. Somerville (Credit: Sylvia Bal Somerville)

Richard C. J. Somerville, a climatologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography near San Diego, is one of a growing array of scientists who have chosen to move beyond studying heat transfer and cloud physics and take on the role of activist: prodding society to move aggressively to cut greenhouse gases.

It is a sticky position, and comes with risks, not the least of which is the potential for opponents of gas restrictions to raise questions about a scientist-advocate’s objectivity back in the research world. But Dr. Somerville, who has also contributed to several reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the risks that attend further silence, in the face of ever-growing emissions of heat-trapping gases, are far greater.

Last month, he attended the climate-treaty talks in Bali as part of a small delegation representing 200 scientists who signed a declaration pressing negotiators to commit to preventing the global temperature from rising more than 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit above where it is now (roughly 59 degrees).

He has just written a column for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explaining why this group of researchers chose this course, and what they feel needs to happen next. His column is online here. Read more …

The edge of the Greenland ice sheet near KangerlussuaqThe melting edge of the Greenland ice sheet near Kangerlussuaq. (Credit: Andrew C. Revkin)

Most forecasting is easier and more reliable in the short run than over the long haul. Think of weather prediction. (And history is full of failed long-term forecasts of everything from oil prices to human population trends.)

But for scientists studying the fate of the vast ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica, the situation seems reversed. Their views of sea trends through this century still vary widely, while they agree, almost to a person, that centuries of eroding ice and rising seas are nearly a sure thing in a warming world. The great shifts of sea level and temperature through cycles of ice ages and warm intervals make that clear. I wrote about that consensus last year in covering the reports released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but also wrote about scientists’ frustrations over trying to convey the importance of a slow-motion disaster.

Many researchers are working hard to try to clarify whether more melting, both on the ice surface and along the coasts, could greatly speed things. I wrote about some of that work for Science Times this week. This post offers a bit more depth than could fit on the printed page. Read more …

Arctic Ocean from spaceA NASA image of the Arctic Ocean’s remarkable ice retreat in September 2007. (Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

The left-leaning Guardian newspaper of Britain has put the Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg — anathema to many environmental scientists and campaigners for challenging projections of ecological doom — on a list of “50 People Who Could Save the Planet” with the Nobel Peace Prize winners Al Gore and Wangari Maathai, the movie star and environmental filmmaker Leonardo DiCaprio, and NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt.

The newspaper, which published the list over the weekend, explained its search this way: “Who are the people who can bring about change, the pioneers coming up with radical solutions? We can modify our lifestyles, but that will never be enough. Who are the politicians most able to force society and industry to do things differently? Where are the green shoots that will get us out of the global ecological mess?”

The Guardian sought nominations from a wide array of people, including Robert Watson, formerly the chief scientist of the World Bank and chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Gerd Leipold, the head of Greenpeace International, and the novelist Philip Pullman. The paper’s science, environment and economics correspondents added their own candidates, then winnowed away.

“Great names were argued over, and unknown ones surfaced,” wrote John Vidal, the paper’s environment editor. He said Mr. Gore, despite his high profile, was a close call: “He may have put climate change on the rich countries’ agenda, but some felt his solution of trading emissions is not enough and no more than what all major businesses and western governments are now saying. But in the end he squeaked through.”

Mr. Vidal explained the inclusion of Mr. DiCaprio this way: “It would be easy to sniff at someone who seemed to have merely pledged to forgo private jets and made a couple of films about the environment, but we felt the Hollywood superstar who has grabbed the green agenda had to be included because of the worldwide influence he is expected to have. Thanks to his massive celebrity status, DiCaprio could be a crucial figure in persuading and leading the next generation.”

Dr. Lomborg (PhD in political science) and Dr. Schmidt (PhD in applied mathematics), who works with NASA’s top climatologist, James Hansen, are worlds apart in their views on global warming.

How did they both make the list? (One possible theory: it’s a good way to get media coverage of the announcement.)

The paper said that Dr. Lomborg “has become an essential check and balance to runaway environmental excitement. In 2004, the Dane made his name as a green contrarian with his bestselling book The Skeptical Environmentalist, and outraged scientists and green groups around the world by arguing that many claims about global warming, overpopulation, energy resources, deforestation, species loss and water shortages are not supported by analysis. He was accused of scientific dishonesty, but cleared his name. He doesn’t dispute the science of climate change, but questions the priority it is given. He may look increasingly out of step, but Lomborg is one of the few academics prepared to challenge the consensus with credible data.”

As for Dr. Schmidt? The paper credited him for co-founding RealClimate.org in 2004. It said “the site has quickly become a must-read for interested amateurs, and a perfect foil to both the climate skeptic misinformation that saturates sections of the web and the overexcitement of the claims of some environmentalists.” It added that “the site has a policy of not getting dragged into the political or economic aspects of science, but it’s fairly easy to guess which side it’s on.”

If you could assemble such a list, who would be on, or off? And given that it’s aimed at people who could save the planet (meaning they have not done so yet), what is it they should be doing?

The Candidates on Energy and (Briefly) Climate

Candidates meet and greetRepublican and Democratic candidates crossed paths on the podium in Manchester, N.H. (Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times)

We had a debate-watching party of sorts Saturday night. About a dozen friends squashed into our den, drawn by the drama of Iowa, to see the latest stop in the prolonged presidential campaign road show, in Manchester, N.H.

It’s fascinating to watch how geography shapes the talking points at such events. With Iowa a memory, there was not a word mentioned about corn-based ethanol. The Republicans weren’t asked any direct questions on climate, which remains a low-priority issue for television news pundits (see my recent post on the Sunday talk shows). The final question posed by Charlie Gibson to the Republicans came closest. It was on oil prices. (The full transcript is in The Times.) Read more …

Alarming Weather and Global Warming

Flattened banana treesBanana trees in Martinique flattened by Hurricane Dean, which arrived in August, unusually early in the hurricane season. (Fernand Bibas/AFP/Getty Images)

Our provocative science columnist John Tierney endured a hailstorm of responses for a column and blog post this week on the tendency of some climate campaigners to focus on extreme weather as a selling point for cutting greenhouse gases. Today he’s posted an explanation and defense of his view, echoing a lot of what I’ve been writing over the past several years. Read more …

A ‘Bottle Bill’ for the Climate

bottled waterIs a nickel enough to keep these bottles out of the trash? (Credit: Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press)

The exploration of ways to create a “sellable” approach to the daunting task of establishing a firm ceiling on greenhouse-gas emissions is important enough that I’m adding another post on this for the weekend.

A Dot Earth reader, Jay Rappoport, followed up on Peter Barnes’s proposal for a “cap and dividend” system with another take on the idea that’s worth highlighting here, if only because the central metaphor is so easy to absorb — having a “bottle bill” for climate.

Of course, one problem with most bottle bills around the United States is the fee hasn’t risen to adjust for inflation, so many bottles still go into the trash because the five-cent surcharge is a yawn. And many drink containers (like all those water bottles!) are left out in most cases. (This recent Green Counsel post about troubles with an updated bottle-bill law in New York State is worth a look.) Read more …

Paying People for the Costs of Climate Control (Part 2)

I started off the year writing about a new plan for making deep, sustained cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions while compensating the public for the hit to pocketbooks from higher energy costs. The plan, called “Cap and Dividend,” was conceived by Peter Barnes, an inventor of socially responsible investment funds and author of “Who Owns the Sky?” He says “cap and trade” schemes like the one in the Kyoto Protocol and various climate bills under consideration in Congress do little, if anything, to help the poor and middle class. He also cites problems with a straight tax on carbon content of fuels. (Grist recently explored an earlier iteration of Mr. Barnes’s idea.)

My post generated a heap of questions, and Mr. Barnes tries to answer them below. He’ll keep at it if you have followup queries. Read more …

Is $100-a-Barrel Oil Good or Bad?

An illustration from a New York Times article on Aug. 25, 1895A “horseless carriage” illustrated in the Aug. 25, 1895, edition of The Times.

As oil finally nosed beyond that once-unimaginable threshold of $100 a barrel, I was reminded of two things. The first was the continuing debate I hear about whether expensive oil is a good thing (the Bush administration said high energy prices were a big reason carbon dioxide emissions declined slightly in 2006) or a bad thing (if you’re a truck driver or behind on your heating bills). Time Magazine found some environmentalists were happy. But high oil prices could actually add to environmental woes in less obvious ways. More on that below. What’s your take?

The second thought was on how little time has passed since humanity, in the mid-19th century, began its breakneck climb to prosperity and planet-scale environmental influence by racing up the fossil-fuel rungs on Loren Eiseley’s “heat ladder” of energy history. I did a quick sift for articles on oil and related subjects in The New York Times archives back through 1851 and found a few fun snippets providing a window on those heady early days, when folks got rich pumping 15-cent-a-barrel oil: Read more …

Paying the Cost of Climate Control

Peter BarnesPeter Barnes (Photo courtesy of Peter Barnes)

Peter Barnes, a founder of Working Assets, the fund making “socially responsible” investments, has long studied various bills and proposals for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide to limit global warming. He sees fatal flaws in every one. So he has come up with a new formula that he says uniquely addresses the most inconvenient truth about climate policy: It will be expensive.

As he put it recently: “Fighting climate change is going to cost all of us money. That’s because the price of dumping carbon into the atmosphere must, necessarily, rise. Whether the price rise is prompted by a tax or a cap makes no difference — we will all pay more.”

He proposes Read more …

Does the Future Need a Legal Guardian?

Given the human tendency to favor current needs over future risks, some environmental and legal scholars are proposing that governments at various levels appoint a “legal guardian of future generations” to consider the impact of policy choices on citizens yet unborn.

A leading proponent of this idea is Carolyn Raffensperger, the executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, a group seeking changes in American environmental and public-health policy.

She is proposing that such a guardianship begin with the next presidency. Below you’ll find a note she recently sent outlining her idea.

I was casting about for an illustration of how this could play out and realized one decent example is the situation of polar bears in a human-warmed world. Their populations have risen in recent decades because of hunting controls. So, for the moment, all is well. But the long-term picture is bleak, according to the latest analysis by government bear biologists. How quickly do we act to change energy choices now to limit chances that Arctic sea ice will disappear entirely in summers later in the century (something most biologists agree would greatly diminish bear numbers)? Is it good enough (from the standpoint of future human generations) to preserve the bears mainly in zoos (as in this Wildlife Conservation Society video clip)?

I spoke with Ms. Raffensperger briefly before the holidays. She explained that even in some of the most forward-looking environmental statutes in the United States, like the legislation creating the national parks, the language on safeguarding this asset “unimpaired” for future generations is in the preamble, and thus not “hard law.”

“We haven’t located that responsibility some place in some entity,” she explained, adding that this was what prompted her to pursue the idea of a guardian. Read more …

Seeking Suggestions, and Offering Season’s Greetings

North Pole campCelebrations at a Russian tourist camp on the sea ice near the North Pole. (Credit: Andrew C. Revkin)

As 2007 draws to a close, so does the second month of Dot Earth. This 100th post is two things — a season’s greeting and a call for suggestions (more on the suggestions below).

I thought an appropriate image for today is the one above, which I snapped shortly after arriving at the North Pole a few years ago with a team of climate and ocean scientists. We had stopped at a Russian base camp set up each spring for tourists on the sea ice drifting over the 14,300-foot-deep spot. It was shortly after midnight. Russian Orthodox Easter was being celebrated. And, naturally, that involved dancing in 20-below temperatures with Santa Claus (he spoke Russian and said he was Father Christmas) and a beauty pageant contestant (she was the runner-up in the Mother Russia contest; the winner turned down the free trip to the North Pole). Read more …

Talking Heads Not Talking Climate

The League of Conservation Voters generated quite a bit of buzz on environmental (and journalism) blogs this week after it launched a new campaign pressing America’s most-watched political reporters to bring up global warming more often on all those influential Sunday talk shows. The group reviewed videotape of more than 120 interviews of presidential contenders by Chris Wallace, Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos, Wolf Blitzer and Bob Schieffer this year.

In the 2,275 questions posed, the phrases “climate change” or “global warming” were used three times, and a total of 24 questions indirectly touched on climate or related issues, the group said. A video version of their findings is here:

There’s more below on the broader question of what the media can, and can’t, do to galvanize a response to the interwoven issues of climate and energy. Read more …

Humpbacks Safe (for Now)

humpback whale(Credit: NOAA)

This is a quick update to note that Japan has temporarily halted plans to kill up to 50 humpback whales as part of its annual harvest of hundreds of whales from several species in Antarctic waters.

The hunts have gone on for years in the name of scientific research, using a loophole in the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling under the International Whaling Commission. But opposition intensified when the humpback was added to the harvest plan (along with about 1,000 other whales, mostly minkes). Read more …

The Climate Message — What Works?

Thursday’s post on Senator Inhofe’s latest attempt to fight big cuts in greenhouse gases generated a lot of comments from people trying new ways of describing the climate challenge that are both accurate and effective.

Accuracy is essential if people concerned about this problem want to avoid ever more attacks from those on the other side, who are just waiting to raise doubts by pointing out any shred of hyperbole. But how do you describe a problem on this scale, with some unavoidable uncertainty, with impacts spread in time and space, in a way that is accurate AND effective?

That is one tough hurdle, as we’ve seen in earlier posts and articles of mine exploring the sociological hurdles to getting people to change current behavior to cut future risks (keep in mind that the pattern holds for things far more personal than global climate change, like cancer screening).

As an experiment in messaging, I recently asked a variety of scientists and other people immersed in climate science and policy to give their “stalled elevator” speech. Read more …

Climate Consensus ‘Busted’?

IPCC reportMartin Parry, a co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, describes a report released in April. (Credit: Virginia Mayo/Associated Press)

The perennial tug of war over what average people should think and do about human-caused global warming has just experienced another big yank, this time from those saying actions to cut greenhouse gases are a costly waste of time.

[UPDATE, 12/21: To post your own “elevator speech” on climate, whatever your stance, go to Friday’s post here.]As I’ve written many times before, much of the tugging may be a distraction from fundamentals that are clearly established. There’s more on that below. In the meantime, here’s what’s up:

The office of Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report online today listing hundreds of scientists and links to peer-reviewed studies that it says challenge whether humans are dangerously influencing climate.

“This new ‘consensus busters’ report is poised to redefine the debate,” the news release said.

But when you sift through the studies, what emerges (to me at any rate) is not so much the shattering of a consensus as a portrait of one corner of the absolutely normal, and combative, arena in which scientific ideas emerge and either thrive or fade. Read more …

E.P.A. to States: CO2 Is Not Your Problem

LA smogSmog in Los Angeles. (Jerome T. Nakagawa/Associated Press)

An unbending reality in Washington is that when someone has to release news that’s likely to generate criticism, it comes after hours. So one can assume the Bush administration was bracing for incoming fire when the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, scheduled a phone briefing for 6:30 tonight.

The news? The agency denied California a waiver under the Clean Air Act that would allow it (and indirectly at least a dozen other states following California’s lead) to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles.

“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” the AP quoted Mr. Johnson as saying. “I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.” Read more …

The (Energy) Future Is Not Now

An artist's  conception of what the FutureGen plant may look like.An artist’s conception of what the FutureGen plant may look like, someday. (Department of Energy)

The FutureGen Alliance — a partnership of coal producers and users and government — yesterday announced the Illinois site of what would be America’s first utility-scale zero-emissions coal-powered electrical plant. The plant will also, in theory, produce a stream of pure hydrogen fuel and a stream of carbon dioxide in a form ready to pump into the earth for long-term storage so it doesn’t heat the climate.

But choosing the location was perhaps the least daunting step. The project, announced by President Bush in 2003, seems to be in perpetual creep mode. The budget, as Matt Wald wrote yesterday, has ballooned 50 percent (because of the worldwide price spike in basics like concrete). The timetable has slid. Components are being shed. The portion of the eventual $1.8 billion cost paid by the government is shrinking. The Department of Energy Web site for the project still describes it as “Tomorrow’s Pollution-Free Power Plant,” and that is what has energy and climate experts and some campaigners worried. Read more …

Honeymoon on Ice

explorer hitting iceThe MV Explorer wedged against an iceberg in Antarctica. (Credit: Courtesy of Torrey Trust)

All honeymoons have their trials and memorable moments, good or bad. But not all of them have situations quite like what confronted Torrey Trust and her new husband, Trevor Takayama, just over a month ago. They were on a celebratory cruise on the Antarctic Peninsula capping a summer of adventures in Latin America.

The couple, both recent graduates of the University of California, San Diego, were in their cabin, wondering why the ship was tilted a bit to the right, when, Ms. Trust said, a voice on the intercom blared, “Iceberg, starboard side!” Not long afterward, with orders to abandon ship ringing out and life jackets on, they headed out on deck and faced the scene captured in Ms. Trust’s truly chilling photo above – no James Cameron special effects, just the red bow of the MV Explorer wedged on blue ice with the low sun of Antarctic spring just peaking between the horizon and a sheath of leaden clouds. (More on their experience is here.) Read more …

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/