Iowa Global Warming

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Read the rest of Paul Krugman’s article here.

For Ban Ki-moon, bringing about a new U.N. climate treaty by the end of this year is a must.

Ban decided from the moment he became U.N. secretary-general in January 2007 that “climate change should be the most important top-priority issue for the United Nations, for the entire world,” he said in an Associated Press interview this week.

Since then Ban says he has put “all my efforts and energy” into persuading nations to cut a new climate deal in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December, replacing the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gases that expires in 2012.

“From day one, I have been trying to visit all the places around the world, wherever and whenever I was able to see the consequences of climate change,” he said. “Now, the United Nations is leading this campaign, in close coordination with the … major players.”

For the rest of the article, click here.

In October 1977, this magazine ran a cover story on the promising field of renewable energy. From today’s vantage point, the article is noteworthy mainly for how uncannily its description of the country’s energy crisis and possible solutions applies to the crisis we’re in now.

The article took as its starting point the national debate that had arisen over a 29-year-old physicist named Amory Lovins, who had come to prominence a year earlier, when he published an essay in Foreign Affairs called “Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?” Lovins argued that the country had arrived at an important crossroads and could take one of two paths. The first, supported by U.S. policy at the time, promised a future of steadily increasing reliance on dirty fossil fuels and nuclear fission, and it carried serious environmental risks. At a time before Al Gore was even in Congress, Lovins noted: “The commitment to a long-term coal economy many times the scale of today’s makes the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration early in the next century virtually unavoidable, with the prospect then or soon thereafter of substantial and perhaps irreversible changes in global climate.” He dubbed this “the hard path.”

The alternative, which Lovins called “the soft path,” favored “benign” sources of renewable power like wind and the sun, along with a heightened commitment to meeting energy demands through conservation and efficiency. Such a heterodox blend of clean technologies, Lovins argued, would bring a host of salutary effects: a healthier environment, an end to our dependence on Middle East oil, a diminished likelihood of future wars over energy, and the foundation of a vibrant new economy.

Read the rest of The Atlantic article here.

In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation’s first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in an era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill will cost households an additional $175 in energy costs in 2020.

The House’s action sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was “hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall.”

Read the rest of the story here.

As a nation, we have the choice of a variety of energy futures. For example, there is a future where we essentially do nothing and continue to rely on fossil fuels. Or there is a future where we transition and rely instead on clean energy.

We can put some basic prices on getting to those future scenarios, realizing that no scenario comes free. By doing some comparison shopping, it is clear that the best bargain in town is a clean-energy future, where we use resources such as wind, solar and energy efficiency and avoid the worst effects and costs of climate change. But this bargain is not available forever. We need to put the right energy and climate policies in place now to take advantage of it.

Moving to this clean-energy economy will require significant investments. These include an infrastructure of new technology, such as wind turbines, solar panels, new or retrofitted green buildings and passenger rail, as well as research, training and education. But these investments will generate real benefits, including new jobs, and avoid substantial costs associated with unabated climate change.

Please read the rest of the article here.

DES MOINES — U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced Monday that Iowa will get $16 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, an amount that likely will grow to $40 million as the state ramps up its efforts.

Chu said officials will monitor the initial state spending before allocating the rest of the money, but that the funding — part of the federal stimulus package — needs to be spent quickly.

“I want to shove this money out the door as quickly as possible,” Chu said at a news conference with Gov. Chet Culver and U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, both Democrats.

Chu said Iowa is among the first states to receive the energy money. He planned to travel to Michigan later Monday to make a similar announcement.

Culver said Iowa has prepared a detailed plan for the projects and that he was confident the state would receive the remaining money from the Energy Department.

Read the rest of the story here.

Chairmen Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey, co-authors of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) said that a new analysis of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows the that the net annual cost of the legislation would be approximately $175 per household in 2020.  This analysis comes on the heels of a new study that found 1.7 million jobs would be created by the clean energy legislation.

“This analysis underscores that this legislation is effective and affordable,” said Rep. Waxman. “It sets America on a course of energy independence while taking significant steps to reduce dangerous global warming pollution.”

“Americans know that building a clean energy economy has real value, and this CBO analysis proves it,” said Rep. Markey. “Low-income American families will see a $40 benefit from using more wind and solar energy and less foreign oil. And for the cost of about a postage stamp a day, all American families will see a return on their investment as our nation breaks our dependence on foreign oil, cuts dangerous carbon pollution and creates millions of new clean energy jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.”

Please read the rest of the article here.

Plenty of leg room. Opportunity to nap, read, talk on the cell phone or work on the Internet. An attendant with a cart selling sandwiches and drinks. And lovely views of verdant, rolling pastures as we sped past.

Recent train trips in southern England reminded me just how pleasant rail travel can be - and kindled my enthusiasm for the prospect of restoring passenger-train service in central Iowa.

My husband and I, visiting a niece and her husband in Fortuneswell, a tiny hamlet on England’s southeastern coast, took a train from London to the seaside city of Weymouth, about a three-hour trip. And from there, we took a one-day sightseeing trip to Bath, about two hours away, home to such grand Georgian architecture that the entire city has been designated a Unesco World Heritage Site.

Trains were on time, the schedules were easy enough to decipher, and heck, even the restroom was clean.

Read the rest of the editorial here.

The large, coal-fired power plants that emit the bulk of Iowa’s air pollution are no longer required to measure emissions of mercury - one of the most toxic chemicals they produce - following the withdrawal of a federal rule last year.

Environmental groups say they are counting on state and federal regulators to put a new monitoring standard in place quickly, but state officials say it could take until at least August before a new standard is brought before the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission for discussion and approval.

At issue is the ability to better measure the mercury infiltrating the state’s waterways, which experts say is notoriously difficult. Mercury, a potent neurotoxin that can also damage the kidneys and lungs, is typically ingested by people when they eat contaminated fish.

Please read the rest of the article here.

Washington, D.C. - Americans could get at least 10 percent of their power from wind and other renewable sources by 2020, but the industry will need better transmission and consistent government support, researchers say.

By 2035, it’s reasonable to estimate that 20 percent or more of the nation’s electrical supply could be renewable, according to a study issued Monday by the National Academy of Sciences.

Non-hydropower renewables accounted for 3.4 percent of U.S. electricity in 2008, up from 2.5 percent the year before, the study said.

The study’s conclusions echoed findings by earlier reports on the prospects for and barriers to renewable energy, including a study issued last year by the Energy Department on prospects for wind energy.

A major impediment to development of renewable energy, the studies agree, is the lack of transmission lines to carry power from the areas such as Iowa, where the wind power is available, to the urban centers where the electricity is needed.

Check out the rest of the story here.