NEWS
Recent News Articles Below on:
1. Semi- Successful outcome of Durban International Climate Conference
2. Shocking Discovery of Methane Plumes in Arctic
3. EPA Challenges Toxic Air Emissions and Mercuy from Power Plants
4. Link proven between fracking and water contamination
1. 11th-hour agreement in Durban sees Big Three legally bound to reduce carbon emissions.
“Climate change accord reins in China, US and India--the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters,
China, the US and India, will be legally bound for the first time to cut their emissions in a new international climate change treaty to be signed by 2015 and to come into force by 2020.”“The "Big Three" polluters finally agreed to a legal regime of emissions cutting at the close of the UN Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa…after most observers had thought deadlock was certain.” “The fact that their soaring emissions – China's and India's growing by more than 9 per cent annually, America's by 4 per cent – will now be brought into a binding reduction framework, gives some hope that the world may hold the expected rise in global temperatures under the danger threshold of 2C above pre-industrial levels.” “Without their participation, the chances of this were zero.”Formally entitled the "Durban Platform", this agreement commits the world community to "develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force... applicable to all parties" – which means a wholly new legally binding climate treaty for everyone. Work on it will begin "with urgency" in the first half of next year and it will be signed no later than 2015, and will come into effect and be implemented no later than 2020.A major fear of environmentalists was that a new treaty coming into force by 2020 would mean "locking in a decade of inaction", but the agreement deals with this in two ways. Firstly, it explicitly recognises for the first time the so-called "emissions gap" – the fact that when all the pledges that all the countries in the world have made about reducing CO2 are combined, that is still far from enough to halt global warming. Secondly, it established a group to work on raising the carbon-cutting ambitions of all countries, in the years before the new treaty comes into force.”
2. Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas.
Russian research team astonished after finding 'fountains' of methane bubbling to surfaceTuesday 13 December 2011
Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."
Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.
Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.
In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.
"In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Dr Semiletov said. "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal."
Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
3. EPA CHALLENGES MERCURY AND TOXIC AIR EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANTS!
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants to limit mercury, acid gases and other toxic pollution from power plants, keeping 91 percent of the mercury in coal from being released to the air. Harmful particle pollution will also be reduced, preventing hundreds of thousands of illnesses and up to 17,000 premature deaths each year. Currently, there are no national limits on the amount of mercury and other toxic air pollution released from power plant smokestacks.
4. Fracking Contaminates Water
Federal Officials LINK Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time
The agency's findings could be a turning point in the heated national debate about fracking.
In a first, federal environment officials today scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing, concluding that contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process.
BREAKING: NH Residential Solar Rebate (PV) is Back.
This just in from the NH PUC – the residential solar electric (GTPV) rebate in New Hampshire has returned! The rebate, available for systems under 5kw in capacity, is $1.25 per watt up to a maximum of $4,500 or 50% of the system cost, whichever is less.
Of the $927,964 of funding, $500,000 is already committed to waitlisted projects, so if you want to take advantage of the credit, the time to act is now! Combined with unprecedented solar electric prices (in the $4.5/watt range), grid-tied photovoltaic (GTPV) systems are an incredible deal in New Hampshire.
Here is what a 3.6kw system, enough to make out the rebate, looks like:
$16,200 gross installed cost
-($4,860) 30% federal tax credit
-($4,500) state of NH rebate
$6,840 net investment
This system locks in your electric rate for 20 years at around .06c/kWh!!! At today’s prices, the system will produce around $750/yr worth of electricity, for a payback of under 10 years.
As half of the funds are already committed, we urge you to act now if you want to take advantage of this generous state incentive. Contact us to get started with a free evaluation.
_________________________________________________________
The Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment
A recent Brookings Institute report found that the clean-energy economy employs 2.7 million American workers across a diverse group of industries — greater than the number of people employed by the entire fossil-fuel industry — and that clean tech has outperformed the national rate of job creation during the recession.
__________________________________________________________
Residential Solar Hot Water Rebates
Dateline August 29 - PUC made the following modifications to the incentive levels for the residential solar hot water rebate program:
1) The State-funded rebate levels will be increased from $600, $750, and $900 to $1,500, $1,700, and $1,900 for Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3, respectively. (The three tiers are based on rated annual system output).
2) The minimum system rated annual output for Tier 1 systems is reduced from 6 million British Thermal Units (MMBtus) to 5.5 MMBtus to better allow small households to purchase more affordable and appropriately sized systems without compromising quality or accommodating excessive shading losses.
3) The rebate levels will be decreased by $150 per system to levels of $1,350, $1,550, and $1,750 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3, respectively, when the current program budget is depleted down to $100,000, or total participation reaches 400 applicants, whichever comes first. The current participation level is 270 applicants.
We have every confidence the solar hot water rebate program will continue to thrive with these modest modifications, and will continue to offer homeowners an affordable, cost-effective means to purchase renewable energy systems that will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, save money on fuel bills, and significantly reduce household carbon emissions.
Climate Change News
U.S. carbon emissions down as renewable energy keeps growing
Between 2007 and 2011, carbon emissions from coal use in the United States dropped 10 percent. During the same period, emissions from oil use dropped 11 percent. In contrast, carbon emissions from natural gas use increased by 6 percent. The net effect of these trends was that U.S. carbon emissions dropped 7 percent in four years. And this is only the beginning.
The initial fall in coal and oil use was triggered by the economic downturn, but now powerful new forces are reducing the use of both. For coal, the dominant force is the Beyond Coal campaign, an impressive national effort coordinated by the Sierra Club involving hundreds of local groups that oppose coal because of its effects on human health.
In the first phase, the campaign actively opposed the building of new coal-fired power plants. This hugely successful initiative, which led to a near de facto moratorium on new coal plants, was powered by Americans' dislike of coal. An Opinion Research Corporation poll found only 3 percent preferred coal as their electricity source -- which is no surprise. Coal plant emissions are a leading cause of respiratory illnesses (such as asthma in children) and mercury contamination. Coal burning causes 13,200 American deaths each year, a loss of life that exceeds U.S. combat losses in 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The campaign's second phase is dedicated to closing existing coal plants. Of the U.S. total of 492 coal-fired power plants, 68 are already slated to close. With current and forthcoming U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air quality regulations on emissions of mercury, sulfur, and ozone precursors requiring costly retrofits, many more of the older, dirtier plants will be closed.
In August, the American Economic Review -- the country's most prestigious economics journal -- published an article [PDF] that can only be described as an epitaph for the coal industry. The authors conclude that the economic damage caused by air pollutants from coal burning exceeds the value of the electricity produced by coal-fired power plants. Coal fails the cost-benefit analysis even before the costs of climate change are tallied. In July 2011, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a grant of $50 million to the Beyond Coal campaign. It is one thing when Michael Brune, head of the Sierra Club, says that coal has to go, but quite another when Bloomberg, one of the most successful businessmen of his generation, says so. The move to close coal plants comes at a time when electricity use for lighting will be falling fast as old-fashioned incandescent lightbulbs are phased out. In compliance with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, by January 2012 there will be no 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs on store shelves. By January 2014, the 75-watt, 60-watt, and 40-watt incandescents will also disappear from shelves. As inefficient incandescents are replaced by compact fluorescents and LEDs, electricity use for lighting can drop by 80 percent. And much of the switch will occur within a few years.
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that residential electricity use per person will drop by 5 percent during this decade as lightbulbs are replaced and as more-efficient refrigerators, water heaters, television sets, and other household appliances come to market.
Even as coal plants are closing, the use of wind, solar, and geothermally generated electricity is growing fast. Over the last four years, more than 400 wind farms -- with a total generating capacity of 27,000 megawatts (MW) -- have come online [Excel], enough to supply 8 million homes with electricity. Nearly 300,000 MW of proposed wind projects are in the pipeline awaiting access to the grid.
Texas, long the leading oil-producing state, is now the leading generator of electricity from wind. When the transmission lines linking the rich wind resources of west Texas and the Texas panhandle to the large cities in central and eastern Texas are completed, wind electric generation in the state will jump dramatically.
In installed wind-generating capacity, Texas is followed by Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Illinois. In the share of electricity generation in the state coming from wind, Iowa leads at 20 percent.
With electricity generated by solar panels, the United States has some 22,000 MW of utility-scale projects in the pipeline. And this does not include residential installations. Closing coal plants also cuts oil use. With coal use falling, the near 40 percent of freight rail diesel fuel that is used to move coal from mines to power plants will also drop. In fact, oil use has fallen fast in the United States over the last four years, thus reversing another long-term trend of rising consumption. The reasons for this include a shrinkage in the size of the national fleet, the rising fuel efficiency of new cars, and a reduction in the miles driven per vehicle.
Fleet size peaked at 250 million cars in 2008, just as the number of cars being scrapped eclipsed sales of new cars. Aside from economic conditions, car sales are down because many young people today are much less automobile-oriented than their parents.
In addition, the fuel efficiency of new cars, already rising, will soon increase sharply. The most recent efficiency standards mandate that new cars sold in 2025 use only half as much fuel as those sold in 2010. Thus with each passing year, the U.S. car fleet becomes more fuel-efficient, using less gasoline.
Miles driven per car are declining because of higher gasoline prices, the continuing recession, and the shift to public transit and bicycles. Bicycles are replacing cars as cities create cycling infrastructure by building bike paths, creating dedicated bike lanes, and installing sidewalk parking racks. Many U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York, are introducing bike-sharing programs.
Furthermore, when people retire and no longer commute, miles driven drop by a third to a half. With so many baby boomers now retiring, this too will lower gasoline use. As plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars come to market, electricity will replace gasoline. An analysis by Professor Michael McElroy of Harvard indicates that running a car on wind-generated electricity could cost the equivalent of 80-cent-a-gallon gasoline. With emissions from coal burning heading for a free fall as plants are closed, and those from oil use also falling fast -- both are falling faster than emissions from natural gas are ramping up -- U.S. carbon emissions are falling.
We are now looking at a situation where the 7 percent decline in carbon emissions since the 2007 peak could expand to 20 percent by 2020, and possibly even to 30 percent. If so, the United States could become a world leader in cutting carbon emissions and stabilizing climate.
___________________________________________________________
New Energy Future Program News
For Immediate Release:
2011-03-24
Release:New Hampshire in Top 10 States for Per Capita Oil Savings From Solar Hot Water
Concord, NH- New Hampshire could reduce pollution and dependence on fossil fuels through the deployment of off the shelf, cost-effective solar hot water technology, according to a new report by Environment New Hampshire.
According to the report, New Hampshire ranks 7th in the nation for oil savings from solar hot water. By taking advantage of this cost effective technology that harnesses solar energy to produce hot water for homes and businesses, New Hampshire could reduce global warming pollution by the equivalent of taking 22,000 cars off the road.
“By tapping the heat of the sun we can reduce the fossil fuels we use for our heating and hot water needs while putting people to work in our communities,” said Environment New Hampshire’s Program Associate Jessica O’Hare. “We have long had the technology and the know-how to harness the free heat of the sun to get hot water, and more than ever we have a workforce that is ready to install these affordable solar panels on roofs across the state,” continued O’Hare
A supporter of solar policies, Senator Amanda Merrill representing Durham, Lee, Rollinsford, Epping and Dover agrees that solar should be used for hot water and electricity. “The report released by Environment New Hampshire offers further support for the proposition that turning to renewable energy sources will help decrease our reliance on fossil fuel and decrease harmful air emissions associated with use of such fuel,” said Senator Merrill. “It also reminds us that we should be encouraging the use of renewable sources for providing thermal energy as well as electric power—the latter being a more commonly discussed application. I applaud Environment New Hampshire for their work on this important issue.”
Senator Nancy Stiles talked to the importance of solar hot water: “As your Senator for District 24, I am working with other Senators to create smart policies that allow opportunities for alternative energies that will help us reduce our dependence on fossil fuels,” state Senator Stiles. “Plymouth Area Renewable Energy Initiative has been able to take advantage of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to install solar hot water on a number of household roofs.” continued Senator Stiles.
Solar water heating has the potential to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and curb pollution that causes global warming and respiratory problems. Solar water heating delivers a variety of benefits to the economy as well:
• Countrywide, Solar water heating could reduce energy bills by $9.9 billion annually, saving residential customers 3.2 percent and businesses 1.6 percent of their current energy expenditures.
• In NH, we could we can reduce our oil use by 37 gallons per resident.
• In total, we can save just over five million gallons of oil and simultaneously promote job growth and improve our energy security.
Jack Bingham of SEA solar store agrees that “solar hot water in NH is one of the best investments a home owner can make. With a functional lifespan exceeding 20 years and the never ending increase in energy costs, there is no better way to control long term expenses.” said Bingham. “With potential incentives totaling up to $6,350.00 depending on where you live, 60% of your system would be paid for,” continued Bingham. He argues that an installation gives “20 years of free energy.”
The report, Smart, Clean, and Ready to Go: How Solar Hot Water Can Reduce Pollution and Dependence on Fossil Fuels, based primarily on a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, provides a conservative estimate of America’s potential to use residential and commercial solar water heating, and the savings in fossil fuel, electricity, and global warming pollution if that potential is fully realized.
The results of the report would come from only the smallest investments in solar hot water heating, but Environment New Hampshire called on state and federal officials to commit to aggressive steps to encourage the installation of solar water heaters on homes and businesses and to promote other solar water heating technologies that can make an even bigger dent in pollution and our consumption of fossil fuels. Solar hot water is particularly cost effective for large institutions that use a lot of hot water, such as hotels and large laundryoperations.
_______________________________________________________________
VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT AIR POLLUTION RULES
75% of Voters Believe EPA, Not Congress, Should Determine Air Pollution Standards; Majority Believe Economic and Health Benefits of Clean Air Rules Outweigh Costs.
WASHINGTON DC Oct 12, 2011 A new, nationwide poll shows that by a wide margin, voters of both political parties and in all regions of the U.S. disagree with Congress’ anti-Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agenda and support the EPA’s new rules to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants. Two-thirds of the respondents – 67 percent – oppose Congress delaying implementation of the air pollution rules, according to the national survey of 1,400 voters conducted by Hart Research Associates and GS Strategy Group and sponsored by Ceres.
“American voters, both Democrats and Republicans, are unified in backing prompt EPA action on the clean air rules,” said Ceres president Mindy Lubber. “Regardless of affiliation, voters want a healthy environment and an end to foot-dragging to upgrade dirty power plants. Despite the rhetoric in Washington, clean air is not a partisan issue among Americans, and Congress would do well to take notice.”
“Although some in Congress oppose these rules, the level of support from Republican voters is surprisingly strong,” said Greg Strimple of GS Strategy Group, a Republican pollster who jointly conducted the research. “The research clearly demonstrates Republican voters are willing to support new rules to reduce harmful emissions in order to improve public health. Republicans like clean air, too.”
The poll, conducted Aug 31-Sept 7, gauged voters’ feelings about two EPA clean air rules - the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule (aka Utility MACT). The first rule will require significant reductions in harmful power plant emissions, mostly from coal-fired generators, that drift hundreds of miles downwind and across state lines. The second rule will require power plants to curb toxic emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gases by 2015. Many of the power plants impacted by these rules are more than 50 years old.
These are the same two rules that Ceres and the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute evaluated earlier this year with respect to economic and job-creation benefits the rules would bring across the United States:
http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/new-jobs-cleaner-air.
Among the poll’s key findings:·
88% of Democrats, 85% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans oppose Congress stopping the EPA from enacting new limits on air pollution from electric power plants.·
67% of voters support the CSAPR and 77% of voters support the Toxics rule.·
65% of voters surveyed are confident that the health and environmental benefits of air pollution standards outweigh the costs of complying with them.·
79% of voters agree that the rules are important to enact for health reasons.·
75% of voters believe a compelling reason to implement these rules is the boost to local economies and thousands of new jobs that will be created from investments in new technology.
MILITARY ACKNOWLEDGES THE REALITIES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
One perspective that is not often mentioned was proffered by
Susan Mayer, Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter's Foreign
Policy Advisor, and a resident of Lee, NH:
"Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this public hearing. I
strongly oppose HB519, to repeal the Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative law. This repeal effort appears to be a part of an ongoing crusade to repeal the 20 century. I view this repeal
effort as a wrongheaded avoidance of the challenges confronting
us in the energy sector – and not just because it will slow our efforts
to achieve energy independence and the positive economic results
of such independence. Our energy needs pose severe challenges
to our nation’s security, and that’s where I will focus my remarks.
Given that we import 60% of our oil from foreign suppliers (20% of
that from the Middle East), we need to acknowledge that our dependence on foreign oil creates national security risks, and
we simply must take action to mitigate those risks. The Department
of Defense (DoD) certainly does. DoD is already taking steps to prepare for rising oceans and extreme weather, to develop
alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, and to implement sustainable energy and environmental practices at our military installations, here and overseas. A whole provision in the Fiscal
Year 2011 Defense Bill was dedicated to sustainability initiatives.
The DoD is also making long-term strategic plans that take climate change into account as a national security risk. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) states that climate change
“will shape the operating environment, roles and missions” of DoD
and that “DoD will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change
on our facilities and military capabilities.” (page 84.) DoD sees climate change, energy security, and economic security as inextricably linked. The 2010 QDR also makes the point that
“while climate change does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond
to civilian institutions and militaries around the world.” (page 85.)
If we are ever to free ourselves from this unhealthy dependence on foreign oil, we must not cut or nickel-and-dime initiatives like RGGI.
All of us need to pull together to make our nation energy strong and increasingly independent, which will have a positive impact on the economy. Our national security needs and the health of our economy require that we keep this initiative alive and well. There are many
steps to take on the way to this goal of energy independence, and RGGI provides one of them.
To conclude, we have many and serious challenges facing us in the
21 century, and we need to meet these challenges with a can-do attitude and courage – not by hiding in the 19 century or by simple denial (a hoping-makes-it-so attitude). There are no solutions in
moldy ideologies from a bygone era, and no point in wishing for and counting on a best-case scenario when responsible, cautious policy-making dictates that we plan for a bad or worst-case scenario.
I urge you to leave RGGI intact, and not to proceed with a hasty
repeal that will be detrimental to the public good in the long term,
and to our nation’s vital national security interests."
- Susan Mayer, February 10, 2010
_____________________________________________________
National Energy News
The University of North Carolina has launched an excellent database to track
has produced a somewhat broader report, Renewable Energy in America: Markets, Economic Development and Policy in the 50 States, intended to provide decision-makers an executive summary on the status of renewable energy implementation
in each state. It focuses exclusively on renewable, rather than clean, technologies, with an emphasis on strong market drivers such as policies, investment trends, incentives, supply chain and resource potentials, and other factors that promote renewable entrerprises within a state. A worthwhile addition to the canon of renewable energy reference literature, the ACORE report can be found here: http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/Renewable_Energy_in_America_Aug2010.pdf______________________________________________________________
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -
Stimulus money at work for you: Solar Thermal Rebate Program
On November 17th, 2010, Governor and Executive Council approved increasing the federally funded solar thermal rebate program from $750 to $2,000. Program is effective immediately and will be retroactive for all previous recipients
of rebates.
_____________________________________________________________
Free Weatherization - YEAR ROUND
Temple residents who have qualified for fuel assistance can receive free weatherization from
TEEC. This program is being supported by the Congregational Church of Temple and the PUC
(RGGI) grant.
Please call Bev Edwards at 878-3227 to sign up, or
sign up on our "CONTACT US" page by
_____________________________________________________________
Environmental News
Across the country, polls reveal an America more committed than ever to a clean energy path. Nearly 90 percent of us want more renewable energy from our utilities. Nearly 80 percent of us want measures that will give us better gas mileage in our cars and more energy savings in our homes and offices.
Most representatives who supported the House clean energy bill won their races. In California, voters soundly thrashed Proposition 23, a measure that would have derailed that state’s visionary global warming law.
Here are some recent findings from a Kelton Research survey of solar/climate issues:
- 94% of Americans polled believe it's important to develop and use solar power;
- 80% want federal subsidies shifted from fossil fuels to solar;
- 70-80% want the Government to tackle climate change;
- 49% would pay more for clean, reliable solar energy
________________________________________________________________
UNH Cooperative Extension Has Energy Answers for You
A trained team of volunteers is ready to take your phone calls or e-mails and answer your energy questions. Energy Answers will connect you with New Hampshire-specific information to help you find cost-effective ways to reduce your electric and heating bills, buy energy-efficient appliances, avoid expensive marketplace scams, and find experienced energy contractors to conduct audits and make energy improvements to your home. Check out the resources on their
website, send them an
e-mail, or call the toll-free Energy Answers Info Line Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at 1-877-398-4769
________________________________________________________________
The ACEE (American Council for Energy Efficient Economy)
put out its 2010 Annual Energy Efficiency Scorecard: New Hampshire, rated at #22, has a long way to go.
The Council used the following criteria to evaluate
the states:
Please see additional information by clicking on the following link:
________________________________________________________________
SIX GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS CHANGE THEIR MINDS:
6 global warming skeptics who changed their minds Climate change doubters have just lost one of their leading lights, as writer Bjorn Lomborg calls for a worldwide carbon tax. But he's not the first high-profile defector
posted on September 1, 2010, at 2:15 PM FROM:
Bjorn Lomborg, a renowned climate change skeptic, recently announced he's changed his mind on the topic.
With 2010 shaping up as the
warmest year on record and
unprecedented heat waves gripping the planet, global warming skeptics have suffered another blow with the defection of the "
most high-profile" member of their camp, author Bjorn Lomborg. But Lomborg isn't the first doubter to accept the scientific consensus that human carbon emissions are warming the planet and need to be curtailed. Here, a review of several prominent cases:
1. Bjorn Lomborg, Danish academic
Lomborg made waves with his 2001 book,
The Skeptical Environmentalist, which argued that
global warming was no big deal, and fighting it would be a waste of money. This month, he's publishing
Smart Solutions to Climate Change, which argues that a global carbon tax should be imposed to raise $150 billion a year to address global warming.
Before quote: "In 20 years' time, we’ll look back and wonder why we worried so much." (
2002)
After quote: "We actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming." (
2010)
2. Dmitri Medvedev, Russian president
Russian leaders are
famously skeptical of global warming, with then–President Vladimir Putin quipping in 2003 that a warmer Russia "wouldn't be so bad" because "
we could spend less on fur coats, and the grain harvest would go up." Then Russia caught fire this summer, choking Moscow with deadly smoke, devastating agricultural production, and convincing Medvedev and other leaders that perhaps global warming is a threat, after all.
Before quote: Climate change is "some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects." (
2009)
After quote: "Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past." (
2010)
3. Michael Hanlon, British science journalist
Hanlon, science editor for
The Daily Mail, was a
self-professed skeptic on climate change until a recent trip to Greenland, where he witnessed the accelerated disintegration of the country's massive ice sheet. A few days on the melting ice floes, he says, "is certainly enough to blow a few skeptical cobwebs away."
Before quote: "Global warming, indeed much of environmentalism, has become a new religion. Like the old religions, environmentalism preaches much good sense, is well meaning, but has a worrying lack of logic at its core." (
2000)
After quote: "I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic." (
2010)
4. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine
In 2001, Shermer hosted a Skeptics Society debate on global warming, prompted by Lomborg's
Skeptical Environmentalist. He sided, predictably, with the skeptics. Then he looked at the science, and in 2006 reached a
"flipping point," acknowledging the "overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming."
Before quote: "Scientists like Bjorn Lomborg in
The Skeptical Environmentalist have, in my opinion, properly nailed environmental extremists for these exaggerated scenarios." (
2008, referring to 2001)
After quote: "Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism." (
2006)
5. Gregg Easterbrook, American journalist and author
Easterbrook was an
early skeptic of global warming, writing an influential book,
A Moment on the Earth, in 1995 that was dismissive of mankind's role in climate change. By 2006, he'd been swayed by the decade of climate research, and wrote an essay entitled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over."
Before quote: "Instant-doomsday hyperbole caused the world’s attention to focus on the hypothetical threat of global warming to the exclusion of environmental menaces that are real, palpable, and awful right now." (
1995, PDF)
After quote: "The science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous... Based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert." (
2006)
6. Stu Ostro, Weather Channel senior meteorologist
A recent survey found that many meteorologists and TV weathercasters are skeptical (or even "cynical") about anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and Ostro
used to fit in that camp. Now he regularly explains the connection between man-made climate change and the extreme weather roiling the world.
Before quote: Large swings in temperature "happened long before humans had a chance to influence the environment, [and] typically occurred within a 10-year period, indicating that drastic climate change can occur through natural means, and quickly." (
1999)
After quote: "When it comes to skepticism about AGW, you could say I have street cred," but "it could be said that I 'converted' and became a 'believer.'" (
2010)
_____________________________________________
From Madeline McElaney, Program and Outreach Coordinator
New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association
The New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association, The New England Carbon Challenge, a joint initiative of the University of NH and Clean Air-Cool Planet, and The University of NH Cooperative Extension are proud to announce the release of their new comprehensive web tool – the Energy Project Connector. This web tool makes starting a home energy project much easier.
So how does it work? It searches all the federal, state and utility incentives available to New Hampshire residents for a home energy job and then provides a list of all the contractors and energy auditors who can do that work in a given area. The reported information is specific to each user based on where they live and what kind of project they are interested in pursuing. This tool compresses hours and hours of web research and investigation into a relatively simple 15 minute exercise.
This really is a powerful tool. So please spread the word. The tool is free and available to the public at our new sister site.
CLICK HERE to take a test drive!
_____________________________________________
REBATES AND INCENTIVES
The NH Appliance Rebate program has been an extremely popular
Rebates will continue to be offered to residents who are replacing their
existing home heating systems (boilers, furnaces and hot water heaters)
UPDATES ON RGGI:
Report from the BNA - the largest independent publisher of information
and analysis products for professionals in business and government.
Emissions Trading
Supporters of Regional Initiative Say Record Shows Trading Scheme Can Serve as Model
As RGGI approaches the two-year anniversary of itsfirst carbon dioxide allowance auction in September 2008, program participants and analysts point to threekey lessons learned to date.First, the virtually seamless operation of the eightauctions demonstrates the feasibility of the emissions cap-and-trade program and can serve as a model for anationwide program.Second, the program has had no measurable impacton electricity prices.Finally, the investment of auction proceeds in energy efficiency and development of renewable powersources promises to save consumers billions.
What is a Bloom Box?
Please click on the youtube video below to find out:
Climate Change News:
NASA Says it's the Hottest Year on RecordWorldwide, 2010 is on track to
become the warmest year on record. The new finding comes on the tail of a NASA announcement that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade in history. "This is just the tip of the iceberg. The models are projecting a substantial warming into the 21st century," one research meteorologist said. (Sacramento Bee, 7/27/10).
Plankton Decline Across Oceans as Waters Warm
A new article reveals for the first time that microscopic marine algae known as"phytoplankton" have been declining globally over the 20th century, and scientists say the decline appears to be linked to rising water temperatures. "Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline of phytoplankton affects everything up the food chain, including humans," the lead author said (Science Daily, 7/28/10).
Marine Biodiversity Strongly Linked to Ocean Temperature
A team of scientists has mapped and analyzed global biodiversity patterns for over 11,000 marine species ranging from tiny zooplankton to sharks and whales. The researchers found that temperature was strongly linked to biodiversity for all groups studied. These results imply that future changes in ocean temperature, such as those due to climate change, may greatly affect the distribution of life in the sea (Science Daily, 7/29/10).
Obama Assigns Responsibilities for Arctic Research to a White House
Council
President Obama released a memorandum that moved arctic science
coordination activities conducted by the Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee (IARPC) to a White House council under the direction of Obama's science adviser, John Holdren. This should strengthen and improve the activities of IARPC (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 7/23/10).
Broken Icebreaker Fleet Puts Freeze on U.S. Polar Research
The U.S. Coast Guard announced that its only operational heavy
icebreaker, the Polar Sea, was operational no longer. Icebreakers
are crucial at both poles to open the way for scientists to study water
below the ice, including biological productivity and processes such
Begich both have legislation pending that includes authorization for
more icebreakers as well as constructing port facilities along the Arctic
coast.
Global Carbon Emissions Steady in 2009, First Time Since 1992
A leading climate change monitor says global carbon dioxide emissions
held steady last year, as the recession slowed industrial activities in rich countries while growth in China and India made up for the decline. As a
result of the recession, developed countries are 10 percent below 1990 emissions levels (Guardian, 7/1/10).
American Robins Take Up Residence in the Arctic
The Arctic is increasingly playing host to a growing list of southern
species never before seen in the North's colder climes. On a recent
expedition, a team of scientists encountered dozens of American
robins amongst the Arctic's famous summer avian aggregation.
Increasing species diversity and population may lead to problems of
supply and demand. "It's collectively a signal of a changing Arctic,"
Climate Change Causes Larger MarmotsResults from a
decades-long research project show that marmots are growing
larger, healthier, and more plentiful in response to climate change.
The groundbreaking study is the first to reveal that changes in
seasonal timing can increase body weight and population
size simultaneously in a species--findings likely to have implications
for a host of other creatures, especially those that hibernate
--------------------------------------------------------------
COME HELP THE KIDS AT TEMPLE’S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RAISE MONEY FOR THEIR SCHOOL--
RECYCLE YOUR PAPER THERE!!
Recycle your paper at the green and yellow Paper Retriever
dumpsters in the school parking lot and help TES raise money!
The third and forth graders at the Temple Elementary School
have been recycling all the school’s paper and are encouraging
residents to recycle their paper at the green and yellow dumpsters
in their school parking lot. When the dumpsters get filled, the
paper will be weighed and the school will earn some money for the
tonage—a win-win! Bring your paper and help the kids at the same
time (the only restrictions on paper type are cardboard and phonebooks).
The kids worked in pairs to create 14 colorful posters asking residents
to ”Take Care of the Earth” and “Recycle at TES”! You’ll find them at
7 different places throughout the town and also on the kids’own page:
WHAT IS YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT?
Please check your carbon footprint with this handy online tool:
Access this carbon footprint calculator:
Wacky Weather - What Gives?
Given the kind of weather we have had here in Temple during the
summer of 2010, it's easier to believe that weather is the main
indicator of global warming. The truth is we should NOT equate
weather with global warming. Remember last winter with the snowstorms in Washington D.C. The issue is climate change which is different than weather. Here are some facts and resources to help all of us sort the fact from the fiction:
There is a difference between climate and weather.
Regional cold snaps are expected even with large global warming.
Weather fluctuations can be 10, 20 or 30 degrees, much larger than
The first 10 years of this century have been the warmest decade on
record.
From: The National Center for Atmosperic Research and the UCAR
What Is Climate and Climate Change?
Our weather is always changing and now scientists are discovering
that our climate does not stay the same either. Climate, the average
weather over a period of many years, differs in regions of the world
that receive different amounts of sunlight and have different geographic
factors, such as proximity to oceans and altitude.
Climates will change if the factors that influence them fluctuate. To change climate on a global scale, either the amount of heat that is let into the system changes, or the amount of heat that is let out of the system changes. For instance, warming climates are either due to increased heat let into the Earth or a decrease in the amount of heat that is let out of the atmosphere. The heat that enters into the Earth system comes from the Sun.
Sunlight travels through space and our atmosphere, heating up the land surface and the oceans. The warmed Earth then releases heat back into the atmosphere. However, the amount of sunlight let into the system is not always the same. Changes in Earth’s orbit over thousands of years and changes in the Sun’s intensity affect the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth. Heat exits the Earth system as the Earth’s surface, warmed by solar energy, radiates heat away. However, certain gases in our atmosphere, called greenhouse gases, allow the lower atmosphere to absorb the heat radiated from the Earth’s surface, trapping heat within the Earth system. Greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, are an important part of our atmosphere because they keep Earth from becoming an icy sphere with surface temperatures of about 0°F. However, over the past century or so the amounts of greenhouse gases within our atmosphere have been increasing rapidly, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Consequently, in the past one hundred years global temperatures have been increasing more rapidly than the historic record shows. Scientists believe this accelerated heating of the atmosphere is because increasing amounts of these greenhouse gases trap more and more heat.
There are many different factors that complicate this system, including clouds, volcanic eruptions, oceans, and people. Additionally, there are likely factors that affect climate which we have yet to identify. Factors interact, resulting in global cooling, global warming, or even contributing to both. Find out more about some of these processes by clicking on the link above.
HOW TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS
By Joshua Frank, AlterNetPosted on February 9, 2010
The Skeptics: There is simply no evidence that humans are contributing to climate change, if the earth is even warming.
Answer: As carbon dioxide (CO2) is pumped into the air through human activities, heat becomes trapped in the atmosphere. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect." If the earth's global temperatures rise a mere 3 degrees, there will be catastrophic results all over
the world.
The Skeptics: CO2 can't possibly be to blame for any so-called climate change as emissions only stay in our atmosphere for up to 10 years. Our oceans and terrestrial carbon sinks absorb this CO2 anyway. In fact, the oceans are so big that they could absorb over 50 times more CO2 than humans contribute now. As such, we can't possibly be to blame for any change in global temperatures today.
Answer: Actually the ocean's ability to store CO2 is not very long. Only 50% of CO2 is absorbed by areas of the ocean that are not very deep. In these areas, CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Recent studies have shown that only 30% of CO2 is stored in the deep ocean. The rest, some 20%, stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
The Skeptics: The evidence that CO2 emissions are linked to any rise in global temperatures is casual at best. Global CO2 emissions do not match Arctic temperatures, which are often used as the best gauge for how to measure the earth's climate.
Answer: While the Arctic may serve as a great resource for measuring climate change, looking at one small area of the planet is not the best way to assess the situation. During the 1930s, for example, warming occurred in the Arctic, but the cause is not exactly known and did not take place all over the planet.
The Skeptics: It's actually been much hotter than it is today during recorded human history. During medieval times, for example, warm temperatures plagued much of Europe. This happened long before humans started burning fossil fuels, which is hard proof that we aren't causing global warming today.
Answer: The warming that happened during 800-1300 AD is considered to be a local warming event, which is quite different than the changes in the global climate we are experiencing today. Ice samples have shown that temperatures around the world varied during that time.
The Skeptics: But ice core sampling is simply not a reliable way to measure changes to our climate because it is an imperfect science. Records come from measuring gas that is trapped in tiny air bubbles. But this air isn't saved in stone, it can seep out over time.
Answer: Specific ice samples may not be completely reliable, this is true. However, in order to reduce error many samples are taken all over the world, which gives us a much better record of the earth's historic climate trends. When used in conjunction with other resources, like tree rings, these records are undeniably accurate and reliable.
The Skeptics: Scientists fix the data all the time. One ice sampling in the Arctic at Siple has shown us that CO2 levels were around 328 parts per million all the way back in 1890. However, global warming believers insist that this level wasn't met until the early 1970s. In order to make their point, graphs have been altered to fix this data in order to have us believe that CO2 emissions, from humans, were to blame for the rise in global temperatures.
Answer: When new evidence is found scientist alter their theories and data. No additional samplings taken anywhere in the world confirm that CO2 levels were above 290 parts per million in the last half of a million years. The Siple ice core samples in the Arctic cannot be used to counter this overwhelming consensus. Perhaps temperatures in the Siple area were elevated for a month or a year, but not consistently and not anywhere else on the planet at the same time. Since new data has come to light to address these findings, scientists have
adjusted their graphs.
The Skeptics: Our environment has a great ability to adjust for inflation in CO2 emissions. When an increase occurs, our carbon sinks pick up the slack over a period of decades. So all the hype about global warming is nothing more than hot air.
Answer: Past warming cycles are not the result of greenhouse gas emissions. These warming trends were the result of the earth's rotation around the sun. When the earth heated up in the past, more CO2 was released from our carbon sinks, which created a greenhouse effect. So when humans release CO2 today we are not allowing the earth to go through its natural cycle. Our oceans haven't even started heating up yet. But if they do, and we do not cut CO2 in the atmosphere over the next twenty years, catastrophic effects will ensue.
(Thanks to RealClimate.org for background resources.)
Joshua Frank is an environmental journalist
Other LINKS to important NEWS:
