November 9, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor

The Climate for Change
By AL GORE

THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.

The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.

The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.

Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.

Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.

As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.

Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop “the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources.” His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And — not coincidentally — it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.

At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.

Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.

But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.

Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.

What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.

First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.

Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.

Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.

Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.

Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.

In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.

This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama’s campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.

Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies.

President-elect Barack Obama gave his strongest public commitment to date in support of a national cap-and-trade system to reduce America's global warming pollution and unleash a clean energy revolution.

The President-elect told the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit, underway this week in Los Angeles, CA:

I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who's willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that's willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that's willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.

He went on to call for a national cap-and-trade system that will "establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050."

What makes this statement momentous is that it signals President-elect Obama's intention to make global warming a central priority for his first term.

EDF President Fred Krupp issued the following statement in response:

President-elect Obama got it exactly right. His plan... will jump-start job creation in new energy industries, and take a huge step toward solving climate change. We strongly applaud President-elect Obama's statement today, and his leadership on this issue.

Meanwhile, at a news conference back in Washington, DC, EDF joined a diverse coalition of 32 leading corporations and environmental groups in calling for national legislation to limit the release of global warming pollution.

EDF was a founding member last year of the coalition—the United States Climate Action Partnership, or US-CAP for short—which was established to add powerful support for effective national climate legislation.

Taken together, these announcements represent a truly historic day in our fight against global warming.

It is important to remember, however, we haven't won anything yet.

These words, while encouraging, won't mean a thing if we can't move legislation through both the House and the Senate starting January 20th.

In the meantime, please forward this email to friends, family, colleagues, and anyone else interested in joining our global warming fight.

By
Christie Furtak
Contributing Reporter to "The Environmental Headlines"
Published Friday, November 14, 2008

If recent research by Yale scientists is any indication, it may already be too late for the environment.

An international team of 10 researchers — including Yale professors of geology and geophysics Mark Pagani and Robert Berner — determined that current levels of carbon dioxide have already surpassed the estimated cutoff level that would cause damage to the planet. The study also found that this threshold level is actually much lower than previously estimated. Still, one Yale climate expert said it would be impossible to implement policies to reach the goal the study sets out.

Past research on greenhouse gases indicated that 450 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 would be the “tipping point” beyond which the effects of global warming would begin to rapidly escalate. But the study, which was headed by James Hansen, a professor of Earth and Environmental Studies at Columbia University and NASA’s lead climate scientist, revised this theory, showing that this threshold level is closer to 350 ppm. The level of CO2 found in the atmosphere — 385 ppm — is already higher than this, and is increasing annually by two ppm.

“It appears as if we have reached CO2 levels not seen for the past several million years,” Pagani said in an e-mail to the News.

The study concluded that avoiding climate disasters depends on reducing our reliance on fossil fuel.

“The point of identifying dangerous levels is to focus the attention of policy makers that decide our fate,” Pagani said, “and give them estimates that they can use to develop national policy and international agreements.”

In their paper, the researchers noted that if left unchecked, current consumption of fossil fuels will eventually result in levels of atmospheric CO2 that are double those of pre-industrial civilization, leading, down the road, to “a nearly ice-free planet.”

“We cannot yet predict the precise CO2 levels that will force the climate state to radically shift,” Pagani said. “We don’t understand how fast this change might come, but we know Earth’s climate system has the capacity to change rapidly.”

An escalation in climate changes that are already occurring — including heavy rainfall and floods, more intense dry periods and fires, and shifting of climatic zones — will eventually bring about irreversible changes, such as extermination of species and sea level rise as a result of ice sheet disintegration, Hansen said.

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team has said it plans to implement an economic cap-and-trade plan that would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and invest into renewable energy sources.

According to the study, coal burning is the greatest source of atmospheric carbon dioxide and its use needs to be phased out altogether. Twenty-five percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels linger in the air for several centuries, Pagani noted.

The authors cited several recommendations for reducing CO2 levels, including improving agricultural practices and reforestation. Geo-engineering methods, such as artificial removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, were discounted as too expensive.

“Coal supply is finite, so we must move to other fuels eventually,” Hansen said. “Why not do it sooner, rather than later?”

Hansen said that re-attaining climatic conditions similar to those of the pre-industrial period can only be achieved if the carbon contained in our remaining fossil fuel reserves is never emitted into the atmosphere.

But Arnulf Grubler, professor of energy and technology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, said that the study does not make any practical suggestions for achieving such a low level of atmospheric CO2 in such a short period of time.

“If we want to take that seriously, we have to stop emitting CO2 immediately,” Grubler said in reference to the study’s new CO2 threshold. “We have to shut off the entire world’s energy system, and even then we’re not reaching that target!”

Grubler also said that the study did not take into account the other factors that must be addressed before any plan for reducing CO2 levels can be implemented. The study also betrayed a lack of awareness about policy making, Grubler added.

“There are international legal structures,” he said. “From an economic, an engineering perspective, it’s infeasible.”

The study was published in the 2008 edition of the Open Atmospheric Science Journal.

The Holiday shopping season is rapidly approaching. That means jumping in our autos and heading to the malls. I was thinking about ways we all can save gas, money, time and our planet. That doen't sound too bad does it?

Gift cards and practical gifts should be the theme this year. First, Giving gift cards would save on mulitple trips for both givers and the recievers. If we all just made one trip to purchase all the gift cards you need. Then it would save on all those trips returning gifts that didn't fit or were not "exactly" what we all wanted or hoped for. Heck, most of these cards can be purchased on-line and even used on-line to make purchases.

This could save millions of gallons of gas nationwide and most importantly reduce our carbon emissions. Having the purchases shipped directly to your home would cut down on half the cost and damage to our environment of transporting them. Instead of products being shipped to the retail stores then, having to transport them home and once more to deliver them. It would make more sense to have them shipped directly from the manufacturer directly to the gift recpient. There would be less returns because they themselves picked it out. Give the gift that shows you care....not only about them but, also our ecosystem.

Practical gifts are great because we all need them and would use them anyway. Things like clothing and supplies for the house or office. Yes, I know it sounds a bit impersonal but....Isn't it the "thought" that counts not the gift. If it comes with a personalized greeting card and a message about saving our planet, I think most would be just fine with it.

We are also going through some tuff times right now and maybe a years supply of toilet paper would bring much more "pleasure" to some than a new crystal vase or a fancy picture frame. You know they will think of you much more throughout the year..... How often will they use the crystal vase?

My mother was very creative and each year she would meticulously wrap our gifts in newspaper and finish them off with a solid colored ribbon. One year she even used a solid black one and they looked awesome!

Why not purchase a live Christmas tree and then plant it when your done. Those other tress that get bought each year are an enormous drain on the environment. They have to clear land and then add damaging fertilizers. Then some type of irrigation system to speed up their growth. Then they are cut down with gas guzzling chain saws and loaded on trucks to be shipped. Most travel long distances before they end up in your livingrooms, only to be thrown out after use. They then must be picked up by another set trucks and taken somewhere to be burned. Giving off more carbon.

Those pretty little lights that everyone purchases new each year, because the ones from last year are in a big knot or one of the three hundred light bulbs is out and you don't have the time or patients to find it So, it won't light up! Why not skip the energy sucking lights this year. Decorate your live tress with popcorn on a string that you and your kids can do together. Yes, spending time together what a concept.
Anyway, you all get my dift. The holidays can be warm and cozy and filled with family and laughter without killing the planet. Make this a truely red and "green" Christmas. Shut off the T.V.s, computers and X-Boxes and send the children outside to play. When they return with those red cheeks it will go well with the "green". How about it....?

WHAT DO THESE HAVE IN COMMON?

A fleece blanket, an artist's paint and an airplane windshield? What these things have in common is they are all made with a synthetic, petroleum-based polymer resin. In the form of hard plastic (known by brand names Plexiglas and Lucite, among others), it is strong, clear, and shatter-resistant. As a textile fiber, it resists shrinkage, stains, and wrinkling. As a binder in paint it dries quickly and holds color well. (Blueegg.com)

But, acrylic also has its darkside: Since it's petroleum-based, it increases our dependence on fossil fuels. It also burns easily giving off one of the most toxic fumes known to man. Its production exposes workers to toxic and potentially carcinogenic chemicals. And it is difficult to dispose of, as it biodegrades very slowly and recycling options are limited. Acrylic plastics are labeled with a 7 in the triangular recycling symbol, and few recycling programs accept them. So, most are illegalily shipped over seas to countries like China. Hong Kong has an enormous problem. "Underground organized crime" run illegal recycling sites are causing hugh health issues for those living and working in close proxcimity to these sites.

Workers, mostly children, are paid as little as 8 dollars/day to remove the valuable parts from the computers, T.V.s, X-boxes and any other "techno" gadgets we no longer use. Most of these are outdated after only a year or two and just tossed out. The harm being done to these workers covers the whole spectrum. Brain, lung and skin damage are not just a possibility but a quarantee. Another clear example of how, WE JUST DON'T GET IT!