How to Stop the Planet from Burning

The title itself is enough to stop most people in their tracks. George Monbiot's book, HEAT: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, published by South End Press, outlines a course from contemplation to direct action to deal with the problem.

From the publisher:

Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning marks an important moment in our civilization’s thinking about global warming. The question is no longer Is climate change actually happening? but What do we do about it? George Monbiot offers an ambitious and far-reaching program to cut our carbon dioxide emissions to the point where the environmental scales start tipping back—away from catastrophe.


Though writing with a "spirit of optimism," Monbiot does not pretend it will be easy. The only way to avoid further devastation, he argues, is a 90% cut in CO2 emissions in the rich nations of the world by 2030. In other words, our response will have to be immediate, and it will have to be decisive.

A Growth Industry: Greenhouse Gases

Without some kind of incentives or regulation, we can count on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States rising substantially by 2020, according to a climate report issued by the Bush administration.

As reported by the Environmental News Service:

The latest projections from pre-2004 EU Member States (EU-15) show that greenhouse gas emissions could be brought down to eight percent below 1990 levels by 2010. An October report by the European Environment Agency, EEA, shows that "if all existing and planned domestic policy measures are implemented and Kyoto mechanisms as well as carbon sinks are used, the EU-15 will reach its Kyoto Protocol target."

The next 10 new EU member states also are on track to achieve their individual Kyoto targets, despite rising emissions, largely due to economic restructuring in the 1990s, says the EEA. The two most recent EU member states were not part of the block last October when the report was produced.

President Bush has said that abiding by the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the U.S. economy. He has argued that voluntary emissions reductions and better technology such as clean coal, nuclear power, and energy efficiency would do the job of limiting global warming.

U.S. scientists, businesses and environmental groups say that if irreversible global warming is to be avoided, binding targets even more stringent than those of the Kyoto Protocol should be set.

What will it take to gain enough political momentum to put the brakes on global warming?

The Unsung Risks of Maritime Emissions

The news changes so quickly that sometimes it's difficult to figure out what you should be most worried about. Most of us are aware of the threat that commercial aviation poses to global climate change, pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at levels that represent about 2 percent of the global total.

But, when was the last time you heard anyone express concern emissions from the maritime shipping industry, which burns about 200-million tons of fuel a year, representing around 4 percent of the global total.

As discussed in this Guardian Unlimited story, the threat is real and growing.

Carbon dioxide emissions from ships do not come under the Kyoto agreement or any proposed European legislation and few studies have been made of them, even though they are set to increase.

Sometimes it's the things you're not worried about that get you.

350 Miles on a Single Charge

The barriers that have stood between electric cars and the public are coming down--one after another. Range has always been an issue, with the typical 50- to 120-mile range per charge scaring off all but the most devoted enthusiasts.

How about an electric vehicle with a range of 350 miles that can be fully charged in 10 minutes?

As reported by CNET News, new battery technologies and a design collaboration between Zap, based in Santa Rosa, CA, and Lotus, the legendary British marquee, will result in the APX, a spirited SUV with performance figures right up there with Porsche and other leading sports cars.

The cost may be a bit of a sticking point with many buyers, however:

The Zap-X will cost only $60,000, said Zap CEO Steve Schneider. The Tesla Roadster sells for $92,000, while the WrightSpeed X1 will go for around $120,000. The Zap-X won't be as fast, but it won't putter either. It will go from zero to 60 miles per hour in 4.8 seconds; the Tesla Roadster does that in 4 seconds, while the X1 can do that in 3 seconds. Just as importantly, the Zap-X will have room for five adults, instead of the two seats in the other cars.
"We are appealing to the SUV buyer who feels sort of guilty about buying an SUV," Schneider said.

The next step is a realistically priced electric car with that same 350-mile range and a price tag about $40,000 lower. I'll settle for zero to 60 miles per hour in 10 seconds if the price is right.

Nuclear Shills and Vainglorious Lies

We live in an age rife with disinformation and the loudest shills are often the ones with the biggest bag of lies. At the top of this liar's club is nuclear power flack, Patrick Moore, who refers to himself as a "founder" of Greenpeace and uses those credentials to hawk the virtues of nuclear power as the clean and safe antitode to global warming. Harvey Wasserman, an articulate and knowledgeable opponent of nuclear power, systematically deconstructs Moore's phony autobiography, bogus arguments, and unsupported statements in The Sham of Nuke Power and Patrick Moore. This piece is particularly important to me as Moore is speaking in my home state of Vermont, funded by his keepers in the nuclear industry, spreading rhetorical effluent in favor of the ongoing operation of the Vermont Yankee plant.

In this article, Harvey says:

In a world beset by terror, there is no more vulnerable target than an aged reactor like Vermont Yankee. Its core is laden with built-up radiation accumulated over the decades. Its environs are burdened with supremely radioactive spent fuel. Its elderly core and containment are among the most fragile that exist.

Despite industry claims, VY's high-level nuke waste is going nowhere. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Edward McGaffigan has told the New York Times he believes the Yucca Mountain waste repository cannot open for at least another 17-20 years, if ever. At current production levels, it will by then require yet another repository at least that size to handle the spent fuel that will by then be stacked at reactors like VY. In short: the dry casks stacked at Vermont Yankee could comprise what amounts to a permanent high level nuke dump, on the shores of the Connecticut River.

Veront Yankee is the only nuclear power plant operating in Vermont and, if wisdom prevails, its operating permits will not be renewed.

Greenhouse Gas Alliance of Western States

Given the reluctance of the U.S. Federal Government to tackle the problem of global warming, five Western states have taken action on their own to institute regional measures for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. As reported in this San Francisco Chronicle article, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the governors of Arizona, Washington, New Mexico, and Oregon forged an agreement to lower emissions and set up the framework for buying and selling carbon emission credits. California leads in nationwide efforts to enact legislation to drive down emissions, but the cooperation of other Western states will hopefully lead to progressive measures and similar legislation being passed in their locales. Some of the states have a long way to go:

While Schwarzenegger last year signed legislation banning the state's electric utilities from acquiring new megawatts from power plants that burn coal to produce electricity, both Arizona and New Mexico generate much of their power from coal, which is a heavy greenhouse gas contributor. One power plant in Arizona landed last year on a nonpartisan environmental group's list of the 50 worst carbon dioxide emitters in the country.

Both Arizona and New Mexico are considering proposals for new coal-fired power plants.

Tesla Electric Car Manufacturing Ramps Up

As tangible proof that electric cars don't have to be dowdy, under-powered under-achievers, Tesla Motors prototyped a sleek, fast sports car last year and quickly found 300 trusting individuals willing to plunk down a deposit. With a price tag that rivals a Porsche, but performance that also matches the legendary German prowess (the Tesla accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in around 4 seconds), the company is targeting its next model for a broader market. Tesla is ramping up to manufacture a line of four-door sedans, having reached terms with the State of New Mexico to construct a manufacturing facility that would be partially funded by the state. New Mexico apparently offered more compelling incentives than California (Tesla had also considered locating the plant in Pittsburg, CA).

Vibrio Food Poisoning and Global Warming

Global warming nudged the temperature in Alaska's oyster beds just high enough to give the bacterium Vibrio parahaemoolyticus the warmth to flourish. As reported in the L.A. Times, seafood in Alaska was typically too cold for the nasty microbe, but by the summer of 2004, the critical 59-degree mark was surpassed in the local waters. Cruise ship passengers fed on local oysters became seriously ill.

"This was probably the best example to date of how global climate change is changing the importation of infectious diseases," said Dr. Joe McLaughlin, acting chief of epidemiology at the Alaska Division of Public Health, who published a study on the outbreak.The spread of human disease has become one of the most worrisome subplots in the story of global warming. Incremental temperature changes have begun to redraw the distribution of bacteria, insects and plants, exposing new populations to diseases that they have never seen before.

Food for thought on the significance of a few degrees of change impacting a region...

Green Limos Make Statement at Oscars

In a sign of the times, many of the celebrities appearing at the 2007 Oscars have opted to appear in hybrid vehicles provided by Global Green USA. As described in this Reuter's article:

The environmental group began the green limousine campaign five years ago at the Oscars to raise awareness among the tens of millions of viewers worldwide about alternative fuel cars, energy independence and solutions to global warming

Ostentatious displays are finally giving way to more environmentally friendly rides...

Crocodiles Off of Greenland

Without swift and dramatic changes, a spokesperson for the American Association for the Advancement of Science said, we are heading for world conditions similar to the Epocene epoch, when massive numbers of species became extinct. At the annual 2007 AAAS meeting, president Dr. John Holdren said:

"Climate change is not a problem for our children and our grandchildren - it is a problem for us. It's already causing harm," said Holdren, who serves as director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.

One colleaque that Holdren quoted envisioned "crocodiles off of Greenland and palm trees in Wyoming."

This Environmental News Service release states the case and offers suggestions on what we need to do next.

Cheap Solar Power Soon

One obstacle to the widespread adoption of solar power has been the capital cost difference between typical carbon-based energy sources and solar power. In the 1970's, solar power cost around $100 per watt. Today, it varies between $3 and $4 per watt. According to Anil Sethi of the Swiss firm Flisom, as reported in this article published in the Telegraph in Britain, the cost of solar power will be around $.80 a watt within 5 years. This will bring the cost below the comparable carbon-based fuel costs, which currently stand near $1 per watt.

The key is a a semiconductor compound (CuInGaSe2) embedded in a thin, lightweight polymer substrate that can be manufactured in rolls, unlike today's glass-based solar panels. Quoted in the article, Sethi said:

"It'll even work on a cold, grey, cloudy day in England, which still produces 25pc to 30pc of the optimal light level. That is enough, if you cover half the roof," he said.

"We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm. They've spent $170bn subsidising nuclear power over the last thirty years," he said.

His ultra-light technology, based on a copper indium compound, can power mobile phones and laptop computers with a sliver of foil.

A number of other solar technologies using other materials are also showing promise of breaking the $1 per watt barrier within a decade and, in a couple of cases, within two or three years. The solar power industry is poised to obviate our long-term reliance on centralized fossil-based power plants and expensive, dangerous nuclear power.

Future Be Damned, Oil Consumption Rises

If the master forecasters behind the largest energy firms in the U.S. have their projections right, consumption of fossil fuels--the major cause of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere--isn't going to be cut back any time soon. In fact, it's going to be increased. The Department of Energy predicts that the combined consumption of oil, coal, and gas will rise 35 percent by 2030.

In this article posted to Alternet.org, Michael Klare showcases the trends taking place:

Because Americans show no inclination to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels -- but rather are using more and more of them all the time -- one can foresee no future reduction in U.S. emissions of GHGs. According to the DoE, the United States is projected to consume 35 percent more oil, coal, and gas combined in 2030 than in 2004; not surprisingly, the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide are expected to rise by approximately the same percentage over this period. If these projections prove accurate, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 will reach a staggering 8.1 billion metric tons, of which 42 percent will be generated through the consumption of oil (most of it in automobiles, vans, trucks, and buses), 40 percent by the burning of coal (principally to produce electricity), and the remainder by the combustion of natural gas (mainly for home heating and electricity generation). No other activity in the United States will come even close in terms of generating GHG emissions.

The rock-headed stubbornness of our business and political leadership in the U.S. defies belief. Faced with a potential planetary catastrophe of monumental proportions, many continue yammering about short-term economic concerns of the energy market. It's a bit like pontificating on beachfront property values while a gargantuan tsunami is minutes away from demolishing every building on the beach.

A quote from the article nicely sums up this attitude:

Typical of this approach is a talk given by Rex W. Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, at a conference organized by Cambridge Energy Research Associates on February 13. As head of the world's largest publicly traded energy firm, Tillerson receives special attention when he talks. That his predecessor Lee Raymond often disparaged the science of global warming lent his comments particular significance. Yes, Tillerson admitted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were increasing, and this contributed to the planet's gradual warming. But then, in language characteristic of the industry, he added, "The scale advantages of oil and natural gas across a broad array applications provide economic value unmatched by any alternative." It would therefore be a terrible mistake, he added, to rush into the development of energy alternatives when the consequences of global warming are still not fully understood.

The logic of this mode of thinking is inescapable. The continued production of fossil fuels to sustain our existing economic system is too important to allow the health of the planet to stand in its way. Buy into this mode of thought, and you can say goodbye to any hope of slowing -- let alone reversing -- the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Dramatic action on our energy consumption is needed--not tepid half measures--if we want to maintain a habitable world.

Tricky Tradeoffs

Here's a tough issue to consider. Harvesting energy from wind turbines has proven successful and this technology is one of the fastest growing approaches to alternative energy. But, as the popularity grows, local objections to the aesthetics of wind turbines on ridgelines and even the noise generated by the turbines in some spots has prompted negative responses from residents. As reported in this Boston Globe article, people who have moved to small towns to escape the noise and constant thrumming of industry in cities sometimes object to even the relatively quiet swoosh of turbine blades cutting through air.

Residents say that town officials and company representatives repeatedly assured them that the wind farm would be silent. Instead, they say, the windmills have disrupted their mountainside idyll. On days with low cloud cover, when the pulsing, rushing noise is loudest, wind farm neighbors say it can disrupt their sleep and drown out the rushing brook that was once the only sound here.

"It changes your whole feeling about being in the woods," said Tammie Fletcher, whose mountainside house boasts floor-to-ceiling views of the ridge where the windmills now stand.

We're clearly at a crossroads where dramatic action is needed to curtail the gases that precipitate global warming. Do individual concerns over solitude and silence take precedence? After all, building a 28-turbine wind farm in a rural area probably doesn't feel that much different to the residents than routing a four-lane freeway directly past their homes and businesses. Is it conscionable to steamroll the rights of the individual in favor of a collective initiative that theoretically could affect the lives of every living creature on the planet? It's certainly closer in magnitude to an annoyance when compared to the potentially catastrophic risk of living next to a nuclear power plant, which contains enough fissile material to contaminate an entire state in the event of a meltdown.

Even benign technology, however, when forced upon an individual or upon a community bears serious consideration. This crossroads will be the apex of many debates as we (the collective "we" of humankind) grapple with the monumental transitions that will be necessary to ensure survival in coming years.

Small Temperature Changes, Big Impact

A few degrees of temperature change don't matter very much, right? Why the big concern over global warming? This Boston Globe article illustrates some of the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of temperature variations across New England.

Techno-Fixes Don't Work

The announcement by Richard Branson that he would award a $25-millon prize to the inventor of an effective carbon-sequestration technology solution to combat global warming looks--at first glance--like a terrific way to inspire innovation and tackle the climate change issue head on. At second glance, as Kelpie Wilson describes it in a Truthout article, Virgin, the Dynamo, and the Prize, it's just one more way to circumvent the root causes of the problem, as well as another example of a misguided reliance on technology to get us out of difficult jams.

From this article:

The truth is that we already have all the technology that we need to save ourselves. Most of the world does not drive cars, use air conditioning or fly in airplanes, let alone spaceships. Provide an African village with a few solar panels and they can have lights at night, and a refrigerator to store medicines. Add a satellite dish and a computer, and they have the world's knowledge and culture at their fingertips. If the environment around them is healthy, it can provide everything else they need for a good life - water, food, clothing, shelter, musical instruments and the enjoyment of nature.

The new, post-carbon civilization will require that we be open to radically new ways of living. At the same time that the industrialized world helps African villagers upgrade their lifestyles to include electric lights and computers, it needs to downgrade its own lifestyles to eliminate wasteful consumption and feel the Earth again.

But what will motivate the rich populations of the industrial world to do this? Conventional wisdom says that they will never give up their wasteful luxuries. They will embrace every techno-fix imaginable before making even the smallest sacrifices, because they feel that they have already won the prize. The prize, in fact, is their monopoly over fossil fuels and the concern is that someone - greens, Arabs, Venezuelans or Russians - will take it away. It's no accident that Daniel Yergin's definitive history of the oil industry is called The Prize.

The techno-fix solution has appeal, because it deludes us into thinking we are clever enough to control the mechanisms that make life on earth possible. A more humble approach would admit that we break more things on earth than we fix and arrogance is at the heart of our most threatening problems.

Changing the Patterns of Energy Use

Representative Bart Gordon, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, is convinced that government must play a role in changing the way that energy is produced and consumed. Accordingly, he is re-introducing a measure, H.R. 364, to create a research agency to move beyond traditional energy sources and develop technologies to address 21st century challenges.

In Energy Research for All, Alec Dubro of TomPaine.com wrote:

Many of today’s IT chiefs, as well as probably most consumers, choose to believe that the modern computer industry was created by the genius of the marketplace. At this point, much of the development is private sector, but the entire information industry rests on a network of publicly financed and directed research.

And so it must be with energy development. The private sector by definition pays for research with a direct, and ideally rapid, return on investment. Moreover, such research is proprietary, hidden from public view. Then, there is the question about the seriousness of research conducted by the energy companies. If the management of Exxon-Mobil has a choice between pursuing a known technology that brought them $40 billion in profits last year and unknown technologies that may never pay off, it’s not too hard to see where their sympathies and attentions lie.

Taxpayer-funded research, on the other hand, can be broader and less focused, looking well beyond the next quarterlies. ARPA-E, if it materializes, would benefit existing and startup industries, as well as continuing research. And it can meet public standards rather than profit-motivated goals.

Will our energy development proceed in an entirely profit-motivated direction or in a way that meets the goals and standards of the public? This bill could help in the creation of technologies that address public concerns.

5,000 Years Ago

Every now and then a story comes along that effectively illuminates the long, uncertain history of humankind. Here's such a story, triggered by retreating glaciers, that hints at climate catastrophes thousands of years ago and the fate of one man unexpectedly trapped in ice in the prime of his life.

Do Something

Instead of sitting back passively, reading blogs and news items about the perils of global warming, consider taking positive and immediate climate action and participating in Step It Up 2007! It's now 63 days until April 14, 2007, the official National Day of Climate Action, and Step It Up Now! hopes to expand the 599 events planned in 46 states across the country even further.

What are they trying to accomplish? From their Web site:

This is our organizing hub for a National Day of Climate Action--April 14th, 2007. On this one spring day, there will be hundreds and hundreds of rallies all across the country. We hope to have gatherings in every state, and in many of America's most iconic places: on the levees in New Orleans, on top of the melting glaciers on Mt. Rainier, even underwater on the endangered coral reefs off Key West.

One of the supporters of this initiative, noted environmental author Bill McKibben sums up the sentiments behind the action in this way:

Every group will be saying the same thing: Step it up, Congress! Enact immediate cuts in carbon emissions, and pledge an 80% reduction by 2050. No half measures, no easy compromises-the time has come to take the real actions that can stabilize our climate.

As people gather, we'll link pictures of the protests together electronically via the web-before the weekend is out, we'll have the largest protest the country has ever seen, not in numbers but in extent. From every corner of the nation we'll start to shake things up.

We can sit back and wait for the predictions to come true. Or, we can turn back the forces that drive global warming through concentrated, committed, grassroots action. Which side of the equation would you like to be on?

Tags: global warming, climate change, Step It Up Now!, grassroots

The Greening of Garbage Trucks

Those big, belching trucks that collect your garbage while getting around 4 mpg may soon be replaced by hybrids that produce energy while braking, gain extra energy from stored hydraulic power while creeping around city streets, and shut off automatically when stopped. This same technology, being prototyped and tested in several cities, also makes sense for delivery vans, shuttle buses, and postal vehicles.

As reported by Frank Greve in a McClatchy Newspapers article, Hybrids could turn big U.S. truck fleets green, hybrid hydraulic vehicles capture up to 75 percent of braking energy, compared to the 25 percent that is typical of hybrid electric vehicles.

Right now, however, the purchase incentives are stalled by a crucial component that must be provided by the EPA:

Hybrid trucks seemed to get a major boost from Washington under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which offers tax credits of up to $12,000 per hybrid truck to compensate for their higher price. The incentive was to start in January 2006, but hybrid makers and potential customers still can't count on it.

That's because the size of the tax credit, which the Internal Revenue Service oversees, depends on how much fuel a hybrid truck saves, and the EPA hasn't come out with a system to measure the fuel savings.

Fuel savings could be enormous once this hurdle is overcome.

Glimmerings of Hope for U.S. Climate Change Action

Serious action to contend with climate change has been seriously lacking in the U.S. for the last six years, squelched by the jackbooted dominance of the Bush administration and a compliant, Republican majority Congress. The first stirrings of action are appearing in the Congressional chambers, as David Roberts describes in this TomPaine.com article,
Going for Broke on Climate Change, but the pace and magnitude of this movement may not be as dramatic as befits the planetary challenge.

As Roberts says:

All the buzz has, for the first time in decades, awakened greens to the possibility of fundamental change. But they should remember that the interests of the planet and the interests of the new congressional leadership are not entirely in alignment. Right now, the overriding political objective for Pelosi and Reid is to position the party favorably for the 2008 elections. That means Getting Things Done, passing a bill to show that they, unlike their Republican predecessors, take global warming seriously.

But a climate-change bill that can pass through today's Congress—much less avoid a Bush veto—will inevitably be feeble. Worse, it could lock the U.S. into a slow, bureaucratic response and dampen public pressure to act.

The most promising bill, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, introduced by Vermont's redoubtable Senator, Bernie Sanders, also has the most teeth. This bill proposes measures to reduce global warming pollutants by 80 percent by 2050.

Tags: global warming, climate change , Bernie Sanders, pollution