Senate votes for first rise in car fuel standard in 32 years

*Ed Pilkington in New York
Saturday June 23, 2007
The Guardian *

Democrats in the US Senate have taken a tentative step in the fight
against global warming by imposing the first increase in fuel efficiency
standards on car manufacturers in almost 20 years.
The Democratic majority fought off resistance from Republicans and
fierce lobbying from the big three Detroit-based car companies -
Chrysler, Ford and General Motors - to raise average fuel efficiency
benchmarks for all new cars to 35 miles per gallon (15km/litre) by 2020.
The existing standard of 27.5mpg has remained unchanged since 1989.
Article continues

Gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive cars, which have to meet an average of
22.2mpg, are for the first time covered by the same regulations as
passenger cars.
Harry Reid, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, said the provision,
which is in an energy bill making its way through Congress, “starts
America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil”.
However, he lamented the fact that another important element of the bill
- a package of $32bn (£16bn) of tax incentives for alternative energy
supplies that would be paid for by a new tax on oil companies - was
blocked when it was talked out of play by a Republican filibuster. “Big
oil seems to do pretty well here on Capitol Hill,” Mr Reid said after
the vote. The debate on US energy needs now passes to the House of
Representatives, which could hear it as early as next week.
Thursday night’s debate was preceded by massive lobbying by both the oil
companies and the car manufacturers, which were backed by the United
Auto Workers union. The strength of the big three car companies, coupled
with politicians’ wariness of forcing an increase in petrol prices for
fear of upsetting the electorate, has meant that the country has for
many years avoided imposing greater fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency
standards were first imposed in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil
embargo, and have been raised only once since then.
The measure was interpreted as a big blow for the car companies, with
the Detroit News casting it as “a bitter defeat for Michigan
automakers”. Chrysler had sought to derail the attempt to raise
efficiency standards by warning that the bill could bankrupt the company.
Carl Levin, a Democratic senator from Michigan who led opposition to the
rise in fuel standards, complained that there was one law for carmakers
and another for oil companies. He said the outcome of the bill’s passage
in the Senate meant that “big oil with huge profits does nothing but our
auto industry with their non-profits took a hit”.
Large farmers and ethanol producers were major winners from the Senate
battle as the legislation allows for a sevenfold rise in ethanol
production for use in motor fuel by 2022, to 36bn gallons (136bn litres)
a year. Most of that demand will be met by maize growers, despite
ecologists’ doubts over the environmental benefits of maize-based ethanol.

————————————————————————
Inbox cluttered with junk? Clean up with Yahoo! Mail
.

Crunch Time on Energy
Published: June 19, 2007
The Senate will tell us this week whether it really wants to do
something about oil dependency and global warming or if it is just
fooling around.
The first week of debate on an energy bill, which the Senate majority
leader, Harry Reid, says he is determined to finish before the Fourth of
July recess, produced a few satisfying moments — mainly involving bad
ideas that were made to disappear. The days ahead will be more combative.
Here are important points of contention and some thoughts about how they
should be resolved in a way that moves this country toward a cleaner,
more sustainable energy future:
¶ Fuel Economy. The most effective energy efficiency policy ever adopted
by the federal government is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
requirement of 1975. CAFE has saved billions of barrels of oil, but it
has not been improved for decades. The bill before the Senate would
bring fleetwide averages from roughly 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles
per gallon by 2020, hardly an impossible target. This proposal should be
approved, and a weaker compromise offered by industry allies should be
defeated.
¶ Renewable Electricity. A provision championed by Senator Jeff
Bingaman, the leading Democratic spokesman on energy issues, would
require utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar,
biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020 — reducing demand for
fossil fuels as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Senior Republicans,
complaining about the one-size-fits-all approach, are threatening a
filibuster. Here again, though, the requirement does not seem insanely
onerous. The Senate approved a 10 percent requirement two years ago, and
the House is talking about 20 percent.
¶Coal-to-Liquids. A coalition of coal interests has been lobbying
furiously for subsidies to build a new generation of coal-to-liquid
power plants to produce diesel fuel. This could reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, although marginally and at great cost. It would also be a
disaster in terms of global warming unless ways are found to capture and
store the carbon dioxide emissions from the refining process. Without
such safeguards, coal-to-liquid plants cannot be allowed to proceed.
¶Renewable Fuels. Biofuels offer a far cleaner and more promising
approach to oil dependency than coal-to-liquids. The bill would
quintuple production, chiefly ethanol from sources other than corn. This
is a generally popular provision that must be amended to make sure that
the rush to ethanol does not destroy valuable forest and conservation lands.
Waiting in the wings is a tax bill that will eventually be married to
the energy bill. On the whole, the tax bill favors renewable and other
clean energy sources over the oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear
interests that received top billing in the 2005 plan. In fact, the
entire energy discussion this year is more forward-looking than it has
been for some time. It will be up to the leadership to keep it that way.

————————————————————————
Nervous about who has your email address? Yahoo! Mail

can help you win the war against spam.

Cogeneration/district heating, see :
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/cogeneration_nuclear-07.htm
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/cogeneration-nuc-csik-07.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/20/20264/9243
http://nnadir.dailykos.com/ : Interesting bunch of diaries, from a
quirky point of view.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397881-details/Eco+warriors+plan+massive+disruption+at+Heathrow/article.do

We assume that many of our readers will be interested in the declaration of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm (Germany), which was agreed yesterday by the leaders of the G8 countries. We therefore document the key passages on climate change below. As usual we refrain from a political analysis, but as scientists we note that it is rewarding to see that the results of climate science are fully acknowledged by the heads of state.

The declaration states:

CLIMATE CHANGE

48. We take note of and are concerned about the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The most recent report concluded both, that global temperatures are rising, that this is caused largely by human activities and, in addition,that for increases in global average temperature, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems, e.g. water and food supply.

Fighting Climate Change

49. We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavour.

50. As climate change is a global problem, the response to it needs to be international. We welcome the wide range of existing activities both in industrialised and developing countries. We share a long-term vision and agree on the need for frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade. Complementary national, regional and global policy frameworks that co-ordinate rather than compete with each other will strengthen the effectiveness of the measures. Such frameworks must address not only climate change but also energy security, economic growth, and sustainable development objectives in an integrated approach. They will provide important orientation for the necessary future investment decisions.

51. We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognise however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development. Action of emerging economies could take several forms, such as sustainable development policies and measures, an improved and strengthened clean development mechanism, the setting up of plans for the sectors that generate most pollution so as to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions compared with a business as usual scenario.

52. We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters.

53. To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009. We therefore reiterate the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change. We embrace efforts to work with these countries on long term strategies. To this end, our representatives have already met with the representatives of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa in Berlin on 4 May 2007. We will continue to meet with high representatives of these and other major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change. We welcome the offer of the United States to host such a meeting later this year. This major emitters’ process should include, inter alia, national, regional and international policies, targets and plans, in line with national circumstances, an ambitious work program within the UNFCCC, and the development and deployment of climate-friendly technology. This dialogue will support the UN climate process and report back to the UNFCCC.

Alexander Cockburn (writing in the Nation) has become the latest contrarian-de-jour, sallying forth with some rather novel arithmetic to show that human-caused global warming is nothing to be concerned about. This would be unworthy of comment in most cases, but Cockburn stands out as one of only a few left-wing contrarians, as opposed to the more usual right-wing variety. Casual readers may have thought this is a relatively recent obsession of his (3 articles and responses over the last month), however, Cockburn has significant form^* and has a fairly long history of ill-informed commentary on the subject of global warming.

There may be more elsewhere, but while he was writing for New York Press he had at least two articles on the subject: Global Warming: The Great Delusion (March 15, 2001) and Return to Global Warming (June 21, 2001). After both articles, I wrote letters to the editor (here and here) gently pointing out the misconceptions and incorrect statements (though obviously to little avail). To whit, the deliberate confusion of weather and climate, guilt by association (he linked climate modelling to biological warfare research!), the complete mis-understanding of the Harries et al (2001) paper showing satellite evidence for the increased trapping of long wave radiation by greenhouse gases etc.

Rather than simply rehashing the obvious mistakes in his current 'science', it's worth taking a step back and looking at all of the pieces together. The first thing one notices is that Cockburn always tries to shy away from giving the impression he came up with any of his anti-global warming theories himself. In each case, there is a trusted 'advisor' or acquaintance who is available to inform Cockburn of the latest foolishness. In 2001 it was Pierre Sprey "a man knowledgeable about the often disastrous interface between environmental prediction and computer models" and now it is Dr. Martin Hertzberg "a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy". Neither of whom appear to have any peer reviewed work in the field.

In common with the right-wing contrarians, Cockburn's opinions are not formed from a dispassionate look at the evidence, but come from a post hoc reasoning given his dislike of the purported implications. This line from the Mar 2001 piece discussing the fact that sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on climate, is a great example:

'You really want to live by a model that installs the coal industry as the savior of "global warming"?'

That is, since any model that shows that aerosols have a cooling impact (which is all of them) apparently encourages the coal industry to pollute, the model physics must be flawed. The same theme is apparent in the more recent articles. Because carbon offsetting and credits have not worked as well as expected (see this excellent Financial Times report), it is clearly the scientists who raised the issue who are at fault. Bad consequences clearly imply bad science.

This backward logic is clear from reading his articles. At first it was the models that were uncertain, the water vapour that was ignored, and it was the 'speculative' nature of the IPCC that he found unconvincing. Then it was the uncertainty associated with aerosols that nailed it for him. Now it is that the CO₂ increase itself that is self-evidently bogus. He drifts from one pseudo-factoid to another, hoping to land upon the one thing that will mean he doesn't need to deal seriously with the issue.

It is probably inevitable that, as dealing with climate change becomes an established concern, those who make a habit of reflexively being anti-establishment will start to deny there is a problem at all, coincidentally just as the original contrarians are mostly moving in the other direction (i.e. there is a problem but it's too expensive to do anything about it). It is a shame, because as some oil companies and their friends are finding, it is difficult to get a place at the table where solutions are being discussed if you have claimed for years the whole thing was a hoax. As some left-wingers start to follow in the footsteps of these unlikely bedfellows, they too will find their association with specious arguments and simple nonsense reduces their credibility - and along with that lost credibility goes the opportunity to shape policy in ways that might be more to their liking.

Denial of a problem - perfectly exemplified by Cockburn's articles - is fundamentally a short-term delaying tactic, but as a long term strategy, especially once policies start to be put in place, it is simply short-sighted.

Back in 2001, I invited Cockburn to visit our lab to discuss the science. Even though it was never responded too, that invitation remains open. A truly open-minded journalist would take me up on it... So how about it Alex?

Apparently the English usage of 'to have form' in this context is not widespread - it means to have a record or past habit, probably derived from horse racing but often used as slang in referring to past misdeeds...

HSBC pledges $100m to combat climate change

Hilary Osborne
Wednesday May 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Sir David Attenborough: Humans have “no alternative” but to try to
stop global warming. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

HSBC today pledged $100m (=A350m) to a fund to tackle climate change, in
what it said was the biggest ever donation made by a British company.
The HSBC Climate Partnership brings together the Climate Group,
Earthwatch Institute, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and WWF
- four organisations that seek to address the global causes and
effects of climate change.
Over the next five years, the money will be used to fund a range of
projects including schemes to protect the Yangtze river and the
world’s rainforests, and work to identify how the world’s largest
cities can adapt to climate change.

Speaking at the launch of the partnership, broadcaster Sir David
Attenborough said HSBC had recognised the problem of climate change
and responded in a “spectacular way”.
He said climate change was threatening vital eco-systems and humans
had “no alternative” but to try to stop global warming.
“The complexity of the problem is so great, the dimension of the
problem is so great that the only way we can do something about it is
to join together,” he said.
HSBC’s group chairman Stephen Green said the partnership was
“profoundly important”.
The bank has already committed to becoming carbon neutral and Mr Green
said it was working with clients in “un-green” business sectors to
help them become environmentally sound.
Mr Green said not all companies would find this as easy as HSBC,
because of the nature of their work.
He said HSBC’s 300,000 employees were behind the partnership and many
would benefit from taking part in volunteering projects with
Earthwatch.
The bank chose its four partners from 10 groups who had put forward
proposals for what they would do with the funds.
The HSBC pledge represents the largest donation made to each of the
charities involved.
Those who receive money are expected to report on their progress
throughout the five-year period.
Mr Green said: “I don’t want to get to the end of five years and find
we have wasted the money and have nothing to show for it, but at the
same time I don’t expect to get to the end of the five years and say
the work is finished.”
The biggest beneficiaries of the donation are WWF and Earthwatch, who
will each receive $35m to spend on projects.
WWF will use its funding to focus on rivers, particularly China’s
Yangtze, to mitigate the impact of climate change on freshwater
supplies and help communities adapt to the problem of water scarcity.
It said the money would help it protect 25% of the world’s freshwater
and benefit 450 million people who depend on the Yangzte, Amazon,
Ganges and Thames for their water supplies.
Earthwatch will focus on helping people research and understand
climate change, including HSBC staff who will be offered online
education and the chance to see projects first-hand.
It will also develop eight new climate change research projects in
five forests around the world.
The organisation’s executive director, Nigel Winser, said: “With the
help of our four partners we want to create a ripple effect, reaching
millions.”
The Smithsonian Institution, which will receive $8m from the fund,
said it would use the money to fund projects that would give a new
perspective on how the world’s forests work.
It will examine how the composition of forests affects how they store
carbon, and establish how important rainforests are to the planet, as
well as undertaking work to see what impact the planned expansion of
the Panama canal will have on the area’s rainfall.
The fourth partner, the Climate Group, works with businesses and city
and state leaders to promote action on climate change.
Its $17m slice of the money will go towards making Hong Kong, London,
Mumbai, New York and Shanghai greener.
Asked why the focus was on some of the world’s richest cities, the
organisation’s CEO, Steve Howard, said they had been chosen for the
influence they would have over the regions.
He said his organisation was looking to “lead a ‘coalition of the
willing’ against global warming.”