The Blue State

Bush Admin: US carbon emission rise of 19% between 2000-2020

The right-wing critics over at the American Enterprise Institute will definitely have a difficult time spinning this one.  An internal Bush Administration memo admits that the President's current energy policy is resulting in the dramatic rise of carbon emissions:

The draft report, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Presson Saturday, projects that the current administration's climate policywould result in the emission of 9.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases in2020. That is a 19 percent increase from 2000.

The biggest source of the gases is the burning of fossil fuels, chiefly oil, coal and natural gas.

Thereport also states that the administration’s goal of doing more thanslowing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions will be decided,"as the science justifies."

According to Ann Coulter, global warming is a liberal conspiracy effort.  With this new memo, I guess that makes the Bush Administration part of the liberal conspiracy effort as well.

But didn't President Bush promise in his 2007 State of the Union speech that he would invest in alternative energy?  He actually did.  Remember though, there is a difference between "alternative" energy and "renewable" energy.  The government can list anything it wants as an alternative energy, such as dirty coal -- which is does now.  But renewable energy specifically refers to cleaner energy. 

As this memo shows, the Bush policy of renewable energy might make the coal industry happy.  But in the end, it will increase greenhouse emissions.

Global warming affecting wind patterns in the pacific

As Al Gore addressed an audience at the University of Miami last night, a new Oregon State University study was released.  It projects major changes to the Pacific coast in the coming years, according to computer models:

Sea temperature rise isone concern, but the biggest worry, as suggested by Barth's research,are predicted shifts in wind patterns.

Instead of patternsshifting every two to five days -- the norm for eons -- climate modelssay patterns may last a month or more. That can lead to long periodswith no wind. But it can also lead to long, equallydamaging windy periods, which trigger massive phytoplankton production.As those organisms die, they sink to the bottom and decay, suckingoxygen out of the water and leading to die-offs of crabs, mollusks andcreatures unable to get out of the way.

Both events happened in 2005and 2006 as the Jet Stream shifted first south, blocking off winds,then north, accelerating the upwelling. Mollusk populations plummeted,otters suffered, at least 1,000 square miles of continental shelf sawdepleted oxygen levels, scientists reported.

In a separate study, this one released by the Brazilian government earlier this week, computer models show a 4 - 8 degree increase in temperature in the Amazon Bason by 2100 if nothing is done to combat global warming.  Can you say deforestation?

Even the smaller, less-nuanced effects of global warming are easy to notice.

Clinton unveils energy policy

In the latest edition of Hillary Clinton's "HillCast" -- otherwise known as those "chat" sessions on her web site -- the former First Lady unveiled her energy policy for if she wins the presidency.  You can watch the video here.

Because I get a creepy Manchurian/Stepford vibe from these chat sessions, instead of posting the video, here is a summary of her plan (WSJ):

Clinton proposes an “Apollo-like effort to make clean and alternativeenergy the energy of America.” The centerpiece: a Strategic Energy Fundto advance new technologies. The money — $50 billion over 10 years —would be extracted from the oil industry by ending tax breaks, imposinga two-year windfall profits “fee” and collecting all the royalties owedfor drilling on federal lands. Oil companies could make up for the feeby investing in ethanol, wind and other alternative energy sources.

That's definitely a good start.  Instead of the U.S. Treasury paying oil companies to drill on government land, as it is today, it should be the other way around.

Also, as the campaign moves along, it will be interesting to see how many of the candidates in both parties acknowledge the differences between "alternative energy" and "renewable energy."  All in all, there is a huge difference.  The government can list literally anything they want as an alternative energy -- even dirty coal.  It comes as no surprise that Bush's new energy plan focuses almost entirely on alternative energy, and not the other.

Deforestation the main contributor to global warming

When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, gas-guzzling SUV's are certainly a problem.  But an even larger problem, according to the numbers, is deforestation.  Forests are necessary because trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and exhale oxygen.  The less forests, the more carbon emissions.  Here is the data:

Portion of all carbon dioxide "emissions" worldwide from lost forestland: 25 percent

Amount of carbon dioxide stored in 1 ton of wood: 3.66 tons

Tons of carbon per acre in an old-growth redwood forest: 3,750 or more

Annual carbon dioxide "emissions" from deforestation in California: 11 million tons

Number of cars to emit 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually: 1.57 million

Number of SUVs to emit 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually: 895,000

Value in California of 1 ton of carbon stored through forest growth: $5 to $20

Portion of U.S. landmass covered by forest at time of European settlement: 2/3

Portion of U.S. landmass covered by forest now: 1/3

Acres of forest lost in the United States each year: 1 million

For some reason, people tend to focus solely on the carbon dioxide that is emitted from automobiles, which is no doubt a problem.  But by the numbers, we would be smart to make the issue of deforestation a higher priority if we want to reduce the effects of global warming.

Businesses ask politicians to pass sweeping global warming legislation

This week the leaders of GE, Volvo, Air France and nearly 100 other companies met at Columbia University to urge politicians to pass far-reaching legislation that would set caps on greenhouse emissions.  The business leaders were joined at the meeting by scientists and numerous international organizations.  Afterward, they released a joint statement:

"Yet, we now understand thatfossil fuels -- as they are currently used -- increase the amount ofcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which along with the release of othergreenhouse gases warms the planet and leads to other impacts on globalclimate change," it stated.

Speaking of CO2, reports show the rate of increase is exponentially higher in the recent generation than it was earlier last century:

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, or CO2, is about30 percent higher than in 1900 and nearly half of the increase hasoccurred since 1980.

The largest carbon-emitting sector is powergeneration, responsible for more than 40 percent of globalenergy-related emissions.

Industry accounts for more than 18percent of emissions, transport contributes another 20 percent, and theresidential and services sector roughly 13 percent.

Lastly, the National Research Council is now warning that the Colorado River will see its flow greatly reduced as a result of global warming.  The council suggested that conservation, desalination and water recycling are some steps that should be taken to reduce the negative effects.

CO2 levels out of control, says science group

The American Association for the Advancement of Science said over the weekend that more needs to be done by policy-makers to combat global warming:

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhousegas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The averagetemperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced formillions of years."

"Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestationmatch observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with amounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies," the board said.

This statement comes amid a major experiment now being conducted by researchers in Utah.  This costly endeavor involves seeing if it is possible to tuck greenhouse gases deep underground, instead of allowing them to rise into the atmosphere.  The hole in this experiment will be 7,000 feet deep.  KSL News, an NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City, explained what was happening:

They're building a pipeline that will bring liquefied carbon-dioxide tothe drill site. The plan is to pump the CO2 into the ground to see ifit will stay there for thousands of years. They'll inject the liquidcarbon into a deep saltwater aquifer and into depleted oil deposits.

If this experiment worked, it would give the federal government a way to actively control CO2 levels.

Last month was warmest January in history

Even the U.S. government, which is infested with industry lobbyists at the EPA and DoE, has a difficult time rejecting science.  January of 2007 was the warmest January on record:

World temperatures in January were the highest ever recorded for that month of the year, US government scientists said.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was thehighest for any January on record," according to scientists from theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climate DataCenter in Asheville, N.C.

How many more records will need to be broken before the media decides to stop distorting the overwhelming scientific consensus?  Even leading economists are acknowledging what is happening.  On Friday, economist Jeffrey Sachs spoke at a forum about global warming and encouraged the United States and China to cut greenhouse emissions:

Jeffrey Sachs, speaking at the U.N. with British economist Sir NicholasStern, said the commitment of the two largest emitters of greenhousegases is "absolutely fundamental" to forging a comprehensive agreementon global warming.

Already, scientists warn that the Pacific Islands are a lost cause.  Some of the leaders on those islands are already considering evacuation plans.

Young people seem to be the ones getting the drift.  After all, it will affect them more than any other age demographic.

Gore plans 24-hour "Live Earth" concert

Former Vice President Al Gore is organizing a day of concerts that will take place in seven destinations all across the globe -- one on each continent.  He already has many big-name artists lined up for the July 7th event:

The Live Earth concert series is set to showcase more than 100 performers, which include the Foo Fighters ,Lenny Kravitz, Sheryl Crow, Melissa Etheridge, John Mayer, Duran Duran,Korn, Pharrell, the Black Eyed Peas, Akon, Enrique Iglesias, Fall OutBoy, AFI, John Mayer, Damien Rice, Corrine Bailey Rae, Keane , Kelly Clarkson, Korn, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw.  The Mercury Newsreports that promoters plan to hold the Live Earth concerts inShanghai, China, Johannesburg, South Africa; Sydney, Australia; London,England, Kyoto, Japan, Rio de Janiero, Brazil and the United States.

Also, Gore wants to make music history.  The 2000 presidential candidate told the press today that this Live Earth campaign wants to hold the first ever rock concert in Antarctica on that day as well.

Kevin Wall, who helped set up the "Live8" concerts around the globe that raised awareness for AIDS and poverty, is helping Gore organize this day of concerts.

It looks like Al Gore is getting the hang of using alternative mediums to promote a political cause.  First the cinema, now concerts.  Since global warming will impact the younger generation, what better way to create awareness about this issue than by directly engaging that demographic.

NASA Study says global warming causing drought in SW

Look for conservative think-tanks and radio hosts to attack this report ASAP.  Before they do, keep in mind that this particular global warming study comes from a government agency that based their findings on satellite data:

A new NASA study says that global warming could increase droughts insouthwest United States, Mexico, parts of North Africa, the MiddleEast, and Australia -- areas already stressed by periodic watershortages.

Comparing historical records of the climate impact of changesin the sun's output with models projecting higher atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases, the researchers found "that awarmer future climate likely will produce droughts in the same areas asthose observed in ancient times, but potentially with greaterseverity."

"These findings strongly suggest that greenhouse gases and long-termchanges in solar activity both can have major influences on climate viasimilar processes," said Dr. Drew Shindell, lead author of the paperthat appeared in the Dec. 27, 2006, issue of Geophysical Research Lettersand a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NewYork. "There is some evidence that rainfall patterns already may bechanging. Much of the Mediterranean area, North Africa and the MiddleEast rapidly are becoming drier. If the trend continues as expected,the consequences may be severe in only a couple of decades. Thesechanges could pose significant water resource challenges to largesegments of the population."

This report comes just one day after corporate moguls, of all people, warned members of Congress at a climate hearing that the time to put caps on greenhouse emissions is now, as opposed to passing that burden to future generations when the problem is even worse.

Energy Secretary doesn't tell whole story about Bush's energy plan

During the State of the Union Address, President Bush touted his new plan to increase funding for alternative energies.  Of course, "alternative energy" is not necessarily the same as "renewable energy."  The government can designate anything it wants as alternative.  But with renewable energy, you know exactly what you are getting.

Still, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman claims that President Bush's plan will fight CO2 emissions:

“The U.S. economy is not something to beexperimented with,” he said. He also asserted that President Bush’svoluntary program to reduce carbon dioxide is slowing the growth ofsuch emissions in the U.S. more quickly than the average industrialnation in Europe, which has adopted mandatory controls.

Again, the Administration is distorting the difference between alternative energy and renewable energy.  Under this Administration, coal is listed as an alternative energy.  Coal emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than the gasoline we use in our cars.

Turning coal into liquid to supplementgasoline could double the amount of greenhouse gas emissions oftraditional fuel, said Robert Sawyer, chairman of the California AirResources Board.

Thosemethods may reduce consumption of foreign oil but do little to addressclimate change in a nation that is the top producer of greenhouse gases.

"Tothe extent you replace gasoline with carbon-based fossil fuels in adifferent form, it deals with the import-dependence issue, but itprobably doesn't get you anything on the environment," said FrankVerrastro, director and senior fellow of energy programs at the Centerfor Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. "It dependswhat master you are serving."

So on one hand, the helpful part about Bush's proposal is it would slowly help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  On the other hand, it would increase the threat of global warming.  If only we could invest in renewable energy, not just alternative energy, then we could deal with both problems.