Environmental and Energy Study Institute

Carol Werner, Executive Director
March 14, 2011

News

• House Energy and Power Subcommittee Votes to Strip EPA’s Authority
• Democrats Make Counteroffer to GOP Cuts on Climate Budget, Senate Rejects Both Proposals
• China to Revise Strategy for Meeting New Emissions Targets
• UK Draft Carbon Plan Sets New Deadlines for Delivering Green Policies
• EU Energy Companies Support Deeper Emissions Cuts
• EU Announces Aviation Industry Will Join Cap and Trade Program in 2012
• Taiwan Weather Bureau Reports Warming at Twice the Global Average
• Climate Change Affecting Coffee Supply, Commodity Prices
• Researchers Map Human Vulnerability to Climate Change
• New Research Predicts Less Precipitation for East Africa as Global Temperatures Rise
• Rising CO2 Levels Causing Plants to Release Less Water, Unknown Consequences
• New Interpretation of Antarctic Ice Cores Alters Classic Hypothesis on Climate History
• Study: More Americans Believe in “Climate Change” than “Global Warming”
• Study: How to Avoid “Dismissive Resistance” in Climate Change Debate
• Melting Ice Sheets Now Primary Contributor to Sea Level Rise
• Report: 2010 Russian Heat Wave Was Natural
• Report Outlines New Challenges for U.S. Navy as Climate Change Progresses
• Other Headlines

Events

• March 15: Meeting Our Energy Security Challenges: The Role of Clean Energy Solutions
• March 16: Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel: Prospects and Challenges

On March 8, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on climate science and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed regulations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The hearing was held at the request of Subcommittee Democrats in an attempt to curb attempts to hamstring the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs), as proposed in a bill cosponsored by Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, and Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee. The legislation, called the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (HR 910), would overturn the EPA’s endangerment finding that CO2 and other GHGs threaten public and environmental health, and would bar the EPA from implementing any regulations to control them. Republicans present at the hearing insisted that the science of climate change was still dubious and unsettled, and they had invited two climate change skeptics to testify. Democrats invited five additional distinguished scientists who called for quick action to reduce GHG emissions, although they steered clear of any political or economic means of achieving lower emissions targets. Committee members questioned the witnesses for three hours, but it did not appear that either side of the aisle experienced a change in perspective. At the conclusion of the hearing, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) offered to make the Energy Tax Prevention Act a bipartisan effort before the GOP’s planned markup of the bill, but his offer was denied by Chairman Whitfield.

In related news, the Energy and Power Subcommittee voted to strip the EPA of its power to regulate GHGs on March 10. The voice vote was along party lines, except for Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who declined to comment on how he voted or how he would vote in the upcoming weeks. The entire House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to vote on HR 910 the week of March 14. A full vote on the House floor could be scheduled within weeks.

For additional information on the Hearing see: The Hill, The Guardian, Business Green, New York Times

For additional information on the Vote see: Bloomberg, Business Green, New York Times, Chemical and Engineering News, Reuters

During the week of March 7, negotiations continued over budget cuts after Senate Democrats released their version of the plan to continue funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year. The Senate’s continuing resolution (CR) would cut $51 billion through this fiscal year, while the House plan would cut $100 billion. However, on March 9, both the House-passed CR and Senate CR failed to pass. The Senate bill would have rejected the House language that would block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using its budget to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs); it would have restored U.S. contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); and it would have cut the language forbidding President Obama to hire “czars” for climate change, green jobs, and international climate negotiators. Also included in the Senate’s CR would have been funds for international climate efforts, many of which the House struck from its bill. Both the House and the Senate proposed to give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) less than the $5.5 billion that Obama seeks for the agency in FY 2012, with proposed funding of $4.3 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively. The current two-week spending bill expires on March 18.

For additional information see: New York Times, Politico

On March 6, the chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), Zhang Ping, announced that China will not repeat the mistakes it made in 2010 as it strives to meet its strict new emissions and energy savings targets for 2011-2015. China’s industrial sector was deeply affected by last-minute efforts to meet the mandatory 2006-2010 target to improve energy efficiency by 20 percent. Some regions took measures as extreme as restricting power supplies to meet the targets, which Zhang noted was “not appropriate.” Zhang said China “basically” met the 2006-2010 target, with energy intensity, or the amount of energy required per unit of GDP growth, dropping by 19.1 percent. To meet its goal of reducing 2005 levels of carbon by 40-45 percent by 2020, China aims to reduce energy intensity by an additional 16 percent before the end of 2015, and carbon intensity by 17 percent, Premier Wen Jiabao said. Beijing is encouraging provinces to rely on market mechanisms, such as cap and trade systems rather than relying on direct administrative orders to meet the new targets.

For additional information see: Reuters

On March 8, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg launched a broad new carbon action plan intended to jump-start the government’s green agenda and impose strict deadlines requiring government departments to deliver on the coalition government’s green commitments. The draft Carbon Plan, to be finalized by this fall, is seen as the UK government’s response to rising oil prices and as a way to apply increasing pressure on the departments that have been slow to accept green policies. The Treasury will be tasked with establishing a carbon floor price by April 2011, and reaching an agreement with the Department for Businesses that allows for the proposed Green Investment Bank to function by September 2012. Additionally, the Department of Transport must provide its national strategy for delivering electric vehicle recharging infrastructure by June 2011, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change must award the contract for the first carbon capture and storage (CSS) project by the end of 2011. Progress will be reported each quarter, and ministers will be required to report to Downing Street if they fail to meet their deadlines, which will give businesses greater certainty that the new green policies will be implemented, said a government spokesperson.

For additional information see: Business Green, Carbon Plan

On March 4, several of Europe’s biggest energy companies announced they would support the European Union’s (EU’s) decision to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The announcement came before EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard’s launch of a strategy paper outlining her vision of the future, which will not include a new unilateral target of a 25 percent emissions cut below 1990 levels by 2020, but will highlight measures that would enable the EU to reach a 25 percent cut at little cost to industry. The announcement by firms from Britain, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Greece, and the Netherlands highlighted a growing schism between traditional heavy industries that oppose deep emissions cuts, and clean technology and service industries that support them. In a joint statement, the companies said the EU should establish a formal target of 25 percent emissions cuts, since “the benefits of early action far outweigh the costs of inertia or delayed action.” They highlighted the economic benefits of reducing the EU’s dependence on foreign oil, and agreed with the need to tighten the cap on emissions under the EU’s carbon trading scheme in order to remain aligned with the pathway set out in the roadmap. Europe’s steel industry, however, fears the costs of cutting carbon will threaten its ability to compete with rivals overseas, which operate in less regulated areas.

For additional information see: Reuters

On March 7, the European Union (EU) announced that airlines must trim their carbon emissions by 3 percent on flights to Europe in 2012 to comply with new emissions limits. The EU executive body set the 2012 cap at 212.9 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), and the 2013 cap at 208.5 million tons. Air travel is responsible for about 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and according to European Commissioner for Climate Change Connie Hedegaard, emissions from aviation are growing faster than any other sector. The inclusion of aviation in the EU’s cap and trade system will make it the second-largest sector in the trading scheme, and will likely push up airline ticket fares anywhere between 1.80 euros and 9 euros, according to EU estimates. U.S. airlines have challenged the emissions cap on non-European companies, arguing that it breaches international law that assigns the regulation of air travel to treaties and agreements between countries.

For additional information see: Bloomberg, AP

On March 9, a report released by Taiwan’s Central Weather Bureau (CWB) found that Taiwan has experienced a warming effect twice the global average over the past century. According to the CWB, global temperatures have risen 0.65°C over the last 100 years, while Taiwan has seen its temperature rise by 1.4°C. Experts attribute the difference to Taiwan’s proximity to the Eurasian landmass, which tends to absorb and store more heat than other areas of the globe. As a result of the warming, the number of typhoons that have hit Taiwan has increased from 3.1 to 3.6 per year, and the amount of yearly rainfall has increased as well. The CWB also announced that it would adjust Taiwan’s climatic average base period from 1971-2000 to 1981-2010 in order to be in line with the World Meteorological Organization’s standard, which will help better explain Taiwan’s weather in relation to climate change.

For additional information see: CNA

On March 9, The Seattle Times and the New York Timesreported on the vulnerability of coffee crops to climate change, and what implications the lower crop yield has for coffee drinkers and companies like Starbucks. Planters in Costa Rica now cultivate arabica coffee beans at nearly 7,000 feet, roughly 2,000 feet higher than usual, once they noticed that weather patterns were shifting. Average temperatures in Colombia’s coffee regions have risen nearly one degree, and in some mountain areas the increase has been double that. At higher temperatures, the plants’ buds do not ripen at the appropriate time; and devastating fungi that could not previously survive the cooler mountain weather can now wreak havoc on coffee crops. Yields have dropped significantly in the last decade, and almost all tropical species are more sensitive to climate change since they can only withstand a narrow band of temperatures. Farmers in Costa Rica and Colombia have coped with droughts, mudslides, erratic rains, and changes in temperature over the past few years. Researchers and experts are trying to help coffee farmers adapt to the climate changes by developing hardier varieties of coffee or recommending strategies to protect the environment and grow better coffee by planting shade trees and planting in curved terraced rows to prevent massive water runoff. Heavy rains last fall drove coffee prices to record levels, which were reflected in the increased price on some drinks at coffee retailers in the United States.

For additional information see: The Seattle Times, New York Times

On March 7, a study published in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography found that climate change will have the greatest impact on populations least responsible for causing it. Researchers at McGill University mapped human vulnerability to climate change by combining climate change data with censuses covering roughly 97 percent of the world’s population in order to project potential changes in local populations by 2050. The map showed that those likely to be most vulnerable to climate change inhabit low-latitude hot regions, such as central South America, the Arabian Peninsula, and much of Africa. The researchers explained that these populations already experience difficulty adapting to hot conditions, and an increase in temperature over the next few decades will make living increasingly difficult. Scientists predict that human populations living in high-latitude temperate zones will be less affected by warming temperatures. The study showed inequities in the causes and consequences of climate change, as countries that have contributed most to climate change based on their average per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are predicted to be the least vulnerable to its impacts.

For additional information see: The Times of India, USA Today, Map

On March 4, a study published in Climate Dynamics predicted that droughts common in eastern Africa are likely to continue if global temperatures rise further. Researchers studied temperature, windspeed, and precipitation data over a 20-30 year period to determine what drove climate variations in the tropical Indian and Pacific Ocean regions. They found that the Indian Ocean has warmed exceptionally fast, increasing rainfall over the ocean and the westward movement of air over Eastern Africa, which causes a decrease in rainfall in the region. However, some East African environmental scientists question the new research, since they believe that climate change will bring increased rainfall to the region. The research also contradicts the scenarios of increased rainfall projected by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to East African scientists, the U.S.-sponsored research was “half-baked,” and only served U.S. interests, while the IPCC used data from the past 300 years from many different sources to draw its conclusions. However, researchers from the University of California who co-authored the new paper said that global models have a difficult time accurately simulating rainfall patterns across tropical areas, and that the IPCC models do contain a lot of uncertainty, so they should not be taken at face value.

For additional information see: Reuters, Study Abstract

On March 4, Science Daily reported on a study to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found that over the past 150 years since atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have gone up, the density of pores that allow plants to “breathe,” called stomata, has decreased by 34 percent. Smaller stomata reduce the amount of water vapor plants release into the atmosphere. In a separate paper to be published in the same journal, scientists found a doubling today’s levels of atmospheric CO2 would dramatically reduce the amount of water released by plants. Most plants use their stomata to absorb CO2 for photosynthesis and to “transpire” water, which helps drive water absorption at the roots and cools the plant. If transpiration decreases, it could lead to a disruption in the hydrogeological cycle and limit the amount of gas exchange with plants. According to scientists, it would be hard to predict how long-term structural changes in stomata number or size will play out. However, the model from the second study projects that doubling atmospheric CO2 will halve the amount of water lost to the air, likely leading to a drier atmosphere and less rainfall.

For additional information see: Science Daily, First Study Abstract, Second Study Abstract

On March 8, a study published in the journal Nature found that major portions of the temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, which have been reconstructed for the past million years using ice core data, can be explained by local climate changes in the southern hemisphere, rather than climate changes in the northern hemisphere, as previously thought. Mathematician Milutin Milankovitch calculated the influence of the variations in Earth’s orbit and inclination on the seasonal distribution of insolation at the beginning of the 20th century. Because land surfaces react particularly sensitively to changes in insolation and land masses on Earth are unequally distributed, Milankovitch felt insolation changes in the northern hemisphere were of more importance for climate change over long periods of time. The researchers took into account that the winter temperature has a greater influence than the summer temperature in the ice core record. Scientists said that the research is significant because it may lead them out of a “scientific dead end,” since researchers haven’t been able to explain all aspects of the historical climate data from Antarctica based on the classic hypothesis. The research was substantiated by data from marine sediments that displayed similar shifts in certain seasons, which leaves open the opportunity to discuss more issues regarding further interpretations of the paleoclimate data. The study does not call into question that the currently observed climate change has major anthropogenic causes, but it can help scientists understand how the climate changed in the past and how sensitively it reacts to changes.

For additional information see: Science Daily, Study Abstract

On March 8, a study published in Public Opinion Quarterly found that the degree of climate change skepticism expressed by many Americans varies on the terminology used. According to researchers, more Americans believe in “climate change” than in “global warming.” The scientists conducted a question wording experiment with a national sample of 2,267 adults, and participants were asked to report their level of certainty about whether global climate change was a serious problem; half of the participants heard the question that asked about “climate change,” while others heard the term “global warming.” Seventy-four percent of the participants thought the problem was real when it was referred to as climate change, while 68 percent thought it was real when referred to as global warming. The researchers also analyzed responses to the survey by political orientation, finding that 60 percent of Republicans thought “climate change” was real, while 44 percent believed in the reality of global warming. Of Democrats, 86 percent thought climate change was a serious problem, regardless of the wording. Researchers attribute the different levels of belief potentially to the different associations carried by each term, and concluded that the partisan divide is not as deep as previously thought. "When the issue is framed as global warming, the partisan divide is nearly 42 percentage points. But when the frame is climate change, the partisan divide drops to about 26 percentage points,” said one of the scientists.

For additional information see: Science Daily, Reuters, Study Abstract

On March 8, a study published in Organization and Environment found that listening to climate change skeptics instead of dismissing them may avert a “logic schism” that typically tends to lead to a political stalemate. The results of the study indicated that climate change skeptics, deniers, and believers are discussing different issues when it comes to the debate. The majority of climate research comes from fields of physical science, engineering, and economics, which largely depict rational outcomes that conclude that something must be done about the warming Earth. The conclusion that action must be taken forces people to “re-think their values, and that’s not gonna go down easy,” said Andrew Hoffman, the study’s author. Researchers noted that studies that seek to understand cultural responses of those who question climate change are lacking, which has led to what the paper described as “climate whiplash,” demonstrated by some recent polling that showed the lower numbers of people who believe in global warming. Hoffman explained that establishing a scientific consensus on climate change was the beginning of building a “social consensus,” since climate change is a difficult question that asks people to rethink their values. According to Hoffman, warnings about climate catastrophes and expensive government solutions will not convince the skeptical crowd. However, reframing the issue into categories that do not threaten peoples’ values, such as making connections to religion, technology, and national security, does not create dismissive resistance.

For additional information see: New York Times, Study

On March 8, a NASA-funded study published in Geophysical Research Letters found that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerated pace, suggesting that they are overtaking ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise much earlier than scientists predicted. Scientists found that the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before, each year over the course of the nearly 20-year study. If the current ice sheet melting trend continues, it may raise ocean levels by an extra 15 cm (6 inches) from 2010-2050, and by 56 cm by 2100. If this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 8 cm by glacial ice caps and 9 cm from ocean thermal expansion, total sea level rise could reach 32 cm by 2050, which suggests that the UN projections for total sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm by 2100 are too conservative. The research team combined data from monthly satellite measurements from 1992-2009 with advanced regional atmospheric climate model data to examine changes in ice sheet mass and trends in acceleration. The study compared two independent measurement techniques—measuring the ice exiting the ice sheets, the quantity of ice being added to the ice sheets, and tracking changes in Earth’s gravity field due to changes in the Earth’s mass distribution—and found them to be in agreement. The authors said that while it is not surprising that ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise, since they hold more mass than mountain glaciers, the current increased contribution by ice sheets does surprise them.

For additional information see: Science Daily, Bloomberg, BBC, AGU Press Release

On March 9, a report released by climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that global warming wasn’t directly to blame for the severe 2010 Russian heat wave. In 2010, Russia experienced its warmest July since 1880, which caused deaths in the region, as well as drought, widespread fires, increased air pollution, and serious crop damage, leading people to question whether the extreme heat had any links to global warming. According to scientists, the heat wave was primarily due to a, “natural internal atmospheric variability,” characterized by a strong and long-lived blocking pattern that prevented movement of weather systems, which have occurred with prior heat waves in this region, albeit not as severe. Co-author of the report, Martin Hoerlig, noted “while the globe as a whole, on an annual basis, is warming, there can be important regional differences . . . the 1930s remain the warmest decade on record for western Russia, unlike the planet as a whole, for which the past 10 years have been the warmest on record.”

For additional information see: AP, New York Times, Reuters Africa

On March 10, the National Research Council published a report that found the U.S. Navy should prepare now for the effects of climate change. Conducted at the request of the Navy, the report recommended the Navy strengthen its capabilities in the Arctic as new sea lanes begin to open up, creating a new geopolitical situation in which multiple countries vie for oil and gas previously covered by sea ice. In addition, the report recommended the Navy prepare for more humanitarian missions, which could represent the biggest change to naval operations, and analyze potential vulnerabilities of seaside bases and facilities. “Even the most moderate predicted trends in climate change will present new national security challenges for the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard,” said Frank L. Bowman, co-chair of the committee that wrote the report and a retired U.S. navy admiral. “Naval forces need to monitor more closely and start preparing now for projected challenges climate change will present in the future.”

For additional information see: New York Times, Press Release, Report

• Rising Temperature in Fraser River Affecting Salmon Population
• Coastal Cities Prepare for Rising Sea Levels
• Filipino Senator: Climate Change Now Evident in Philippines, Vietnam
• UN Postpones Crucial Green Fund Meeting
• Hedegaard's EU Roadmap to 2050 Demands Steeper Emissions Cuts
• Greens Want Less Compensation in Australian Carbon Pricing Scheme
• NASA Admin Bolden Defends Earth Science Missions
• Increased Air Traffic May Be a Factor in Climate Change
• Satellite Measures Gravity's Effect on Climate Change

The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) is holding a briefing on issues related to clean energy’s role in managing energy security challenges. Energy security is vital to both short-term economic recovery and long-term economic growth. Clean energy technologies can both help decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil and help modernize our aging
electrical grid and other energy infrastructure, increasing the dependability and affordability of the energy we need to power our economy. Many of these technologies can provide savings to the U.S. government, reducing costs without decreasing effectiveness for both the military and the civil service. Common sense bipartisan policies can help remove market barriers to the development and deployment of these technologies. Speakers at this event will include Ethan Zindler from Bloomberg News, Rick Carter from National Grid, Chris Cook from SunEdison, Dan LeFevers from the Gas Technology Institute, and Mark Wagner from Johnson Controls Inc. This briefing will be held from 3:30 - 4:30 pm in SV 203-02 in the Capitol Visitor Center (Metro: Capitol South or Union Station). It is free and open to the public, RSVP is required. For more information, contact Jack Thirolf at jthirolf [at] bcse.org, or (202) 785-0507.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to a briefing on the prospects for increased use of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas has a current price advantage over diesel fuel and gasoline (per gallon equivalent), emits fewer greenhouse gases when burned (per unit energy), and comes from mostly domestic sources at present. However, increasing and sustaining U.S. gas production will rely heavily on unconventional sources (shale gas, coal-bed methane, and tight gas), which face potentially rising costs, require continuous and intensive drilling, and present significant water supply, water quality, wastewater, air quality, land use, and seismic risk issues. Speakers for this event will include Dana Aunkst from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Lynn Pittinger of Pittinger Consulting, and Steven Hamburg from the Environmental Defense Fund, and representatives from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and MIT. This briefing will be held from 3:00 – 4:30 pm in 2318 Rayburn House Office Building (Metro: Capitol South). It is free and open to the public, no RSVP required. For more information, contact Jan Mueller at jmueller [at] eesi.org, or (202) 628-1400.