Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Planting trees is far from pointless (letter to the editor)
Ken Caldeira, Guardian
I was aghast to see our study reported under the headline “Planting trees to save planet is pointless, say ecologists” (December 15). Indeed, our study found that preserving and restoring tropical forests is doubly important, as they cool the earth both by removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and by helping produce cooling clouds. We did find that preserving and restoring forests outside the tropics does little or nothing to help slow climate change, but nevertheless these forests are a critical component of Earth’s biosphere and great urgency should be placed on preserving them.
Preventing the overheating of our planet will require a major revolution in our system of energy production, with the introduction of renewable and perhaps nuclear-energy sources and the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions. Such a step is necessary to preserve our natural environment. However, we must concurrently take action to protect our forests so that we have an environment worth preserving.
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution, Stanford, California
(16 Dec 2006)
India Says Its Carbon Emissions Not Harming World
Nita Bhalla, Reuters via Common Dreams
India, considered to be one of the world’s top polluters, said on Thursday that it was not doing any harm to the world’s atmosphere despite increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.
…While India is not required under the Kyoto Protocol to cut emission levels at this stage, experts say its emissions are rising due to its rapid economic development and could become a significant contributor to global warming.
But the country’s environment minister told parliament India’s emissions were insignificant compared to those of richer nations which should take the lead in curbing greenhouse gases.
…India increased carbon dioxide emissions by 33 percent between 1992 and 2002, said the bank’s “Little Green Data Book,” a survey of mankind’s global environmental impact.
New Delhi says it must use more energy to lift its population from poverty and that its per-capita emissions are a fraction of those in rich states which have burnt fossil fuels unhindered since the Industrial Revolution.
But environmentalists say India does not need to invest in carbon-intensive industries.
(14 Dec 2006)
Climate change clash in Africa
Tristan McConnell, Christian Science Monitor
Uganda’s Karimojong herders are the latest example of how global warming contributes to increased fighting.
—-
NAKAPIRIPIRIT, UGANDA – It’s been a bloody first half of the dry season in Uganda’s Karamoja region. October to February is the time when grass turns brittle, mud dries and cracks, and competition for scarce resources increases. More than 40 people have died in recent weeks in fighting between Karimojong warriors and the Ugandan Army in the arid northeast of the country.
The semi-nomadic Karimojong are pastoralists who protect their cows, violently if necessary. The warriors are well armed and this has put them on a collision course with Uganda’s government. But the recent clashes are a symptom of more universal problems.
As elsewhere in Africa, the population in eastern Uganda continues to grow as the environment deteriorates, putting more and more pressure on a land that grows ever drier. At a United Nations conference on climate change held in neighboring Kenya last month, environmentalists warned that Africa would bear the brunt of global warming.
With more people forced to share fewer resources, experts warn that conflict will increase. “Climate change will hit pastoral communities very hard,” says Grace Akumu, executive director of environmental pressure group Climate Network Africa. “The conflict is already getting out of hand and we are going to see an increase in this insecurity.”
Africa consumes least, harmed most
Ms. Akumu argues that, while pastoralists who live in arid regions will suffer, it is the Western countries who are to blame, especially the United States, which refuses to sign on to global protocols to reduce greenhouse gases. “Pastoralists are the losers – they are not responsible, but they feel the impact of climate change the most. The blame lies squarely at the doorstep of America.”
(20 Dec 2006)
No dramatic U-turn seen on U.S. climate change policy
Jeremy Lovell, Reuters
Washington is likely to stay out of the U.N. Kyoto Protocol for curbing greenhouse gases beyond 2012 even with a shift in power to Democrats from Republicans, a former top U.S. trade and economics official said.
Stuart Eizenstat, lead negotiator for former President Bill Clinton on the Kyoto Protocol for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, said changes were afoot at state and business level but the mere mention of Kyoto was a red rag and would remain so.
…But for Eizenstat, a former U.S. deputy treasury secretary and under secretary of commerce for international trade, the numbers simply do not add up because it needs a two-thirds majority to get laws through — and that looks unlikely given most Republicans’ ideological hatred of Kyoto.
(19 Dec 2006)
Climate Policy Could Hinder Renewable Energy
Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
…Clean air and renewable energy advocates cheered when the incoming Senate Environment Committee chair, California’s Barbara Boxer, announced plans to introduce a measure resembling AB 32, her home state’s new and ambitious climate change policy. It certainly stands to reason that lowering atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) would necessitate greater use of such emission-free energy sources as wind, solar and hydro.
But when it comes to designing the mechanism that will drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, air regulators and renewable energy producers hold conflicting viewpoints. As a result of this fundamental disagreement, it is entirely possible that new federal climate change policies may do more harm than good for renewable energy development.
Most climate change policy experts believe that when the United States does adopt a greenhouse gas reduction program, it will take the form of a cap-and-trade system, like what was employed some 20 years ago to lower quantities of acid rain-causing gases. Under this model, allowances (a/k/a pollution rights) are allocated to major sources of the pollutant being regulated. Within the limit set by the ceiling, these regulated entities can buy and sell these allowances depending on their ability to achieve reductions.
The beauty of this system is that when allowances are sold to non-polluting market participants to be “retired”, the ceiling is lowered, thus reducing the volume of pollutants in the air.
Under the precedent set by the 1990 Clean Air Act, air regulators allocated allowances only to those entities discharging sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), namely coal-fired stations. Renewable generators do not receive allowances because they don’t contribute to the acid rain problem. While this is unarguably true, this outlook effectively prevents new renewable generation from lowering the allowable ceiling for SO2 and NOx emissions.
It may surprise some to learn that all the renewable generation sources that were placed in service after EPA set its overall emissions budget have had no material effect on the ceiling, nor have they financially benefited from that market. Moreover, by being ineligible for any allowances allocated under the Clean Air Act, renewable generators cannot rightfully claim that they are avoiding the production of SO2 and NOx.
…If large and small customers value the greenhouse gas reducing properties of renewable energy, so should the regulators who will be responsible for shaping federal carbon policies. So long as the public perceives wind, solar, biogas and hydro projects as effective tools for mitigating climate change, voluntary markets for renewable energy will continue to grow. But if regulators decide not to give credit to personal and corporate decisions to buy renewable energy, the consequence for producers could be worse than no carbon policy at all.
Vickerman is executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, an independent, nonprofit organization that acts as a catalyst to advance a sustainable energy future through public policy and private sector initiatives.
(15 Dec 2006)
A technical point, but with significant effects. -BA
