union of concerned scientists

Interested in a discussion online about carbon emissions and real, science-based solutions to global warming? This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

A Target for U.S. Emissions Reduction

Join Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel for free web seminar on the analysis for determining “A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions.” Following a presentation on the findings, will be a Q&A session.

Date: February 20, 2008
Time: 2:00 pm (EST)
Click here to RSVP. Directions on how to join will be emailed to you.

Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial average (i.e., prior to 1860) poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. The European Union as well as climate legislation moving through the U.S. Congress both employ 2°C as a guide for policy goals.

A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and scientists at Stanford University and Texas Tech University analyzes available options for industrialized and developing nations’ respective share in reducing emissions. The study found that the United States must cut its emissions by at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050, along with a global effort to make deep emission reductions, if the world is to stay below the 2°C policy target. Cutting emissions soon is essential.

BUSY DAY! I don't like writing this many posts in one day, but the Democrats are keeping me busy!

This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

The composition of the new Congress offers us the brightest prospects we have seen in years to pass strong federal renewable energy policy through a renewable electricity standard (also known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS).

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), head of the Senate Energy Committee, has said he will support a 15 percent national renewable electricity standard.

As of April 4, 2007, 48 Senators have signed a "dear colleague" letter supporting the renewable electricity standard.

The House renewable standard bill, introduced February 8, 2007 by Tom Udall (D-NM), Todd Platts (R-PA) and others, would require that utilities generate or buy 20 percent clean, renewable energy by 2020. Fifty-nine representatives have co-sponsored the bill.

Clean sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and energy crops reduce global warming pollution, create jobs, save consumers money, and increase America's energy independence and security. A bill expected in the Senate would require utilities to have 15 percent of their electricity come from these clean, renewable sources by 2020.

Please urge your senators to support this strong renewable electricity standard.

Energy will be one of our number one issues in coming years. The conflicting pull of increased demand overwhelming our grid and the need to cut carbon emissions to battle global warming before our 10-year window has passed. Both of these conflicting needs are critical needs and we have to find a way to address both.

The 21st century solutions, as seen by scientists, is increased efficiency, reforestation and new energy solutions like wind, biofuels, geothermal, tidal, and solar energy. But too often the American solution is a 19th century solution: coal. Using dirty coal, which affects our health, and adds carbon and pollutants to the atmosphere, is a relatively cheap solution to increased energy demand...but is completely stupid when we have only 10 short years to address global warming. Clean coal, which still adds carbon to the atmosphere but doesn't have as many problems as dirty coal, costs about the same as wind power...which is one of the cleanest and most practical solutions we have. Denmark, a much smaller economy than our own, generates more wind energy than the entire United States.

One problem is investment trends. Banks are slow to change their investment practices. The Union of Concerned Scientists is lobbying banks to change their investment practices to favor alternative energy over coal. I should note that I personally have profited from investing in both solar and geothermal.

When I was a kid my family recycled. We were very unusual in doing this and had to go to great lengths to get our recyclables to a place we could drop them off. By the time I was in grad school, it was much more common to recycle and even some Republican-leaning friends of mine were recycling.

Then city after city started making separation of recyclables mandatory. Los Angeles, Santa Cruz and NYC are the last three American cities I lived in and all three have laws requiring recycling. This is real progress that is often overlooked.

But there is another and probably even more important side to the equation: a market for recycled products. If there is no market, then recycling does little good.

Metal recycling is always worthwhile because there is a large market for them. The market for recycled glass is much smaller because bottlers find it easier and cheaper to make bottles de novo. In between are the different kinds of paper and plastics.

But one disturbing trend is a DECLINE in the market for recycled paper. This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Is Recycled Paper in Trouble?
March 2007

The growing presence of recycled paper has led many people to believe that all paper is now made from recycled materials. This unfortunate misconception has actually decreased demand for recycled paper, causing manufacturers to produce less. As a result, more than 90 percent of printing and writing paper still comes from virgin tree fiber.

This one comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

On January 3, the Union of Concerned Scientists released Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil uses Big Tobacco Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science. The report documents how ExxonMobil has underwritten one of the most successful disinformation campaigns since the tobacco industry’s 40-year effort to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking. In recent years, ExxonMobil provided close to $16 million in funding to 40 groups that question the urgency of global warming. This web of organizations disseminates the views of a dwindling group of climate change contrarians. Through this sophisticated effort, ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about even the most indisputable scientific evidence on global warming. Disturbingly, ExxonMobil has drawn on the same tactics, and even some of the same organizations and people as Big Tobacco.

The report also reveals how ExxonMobil’s extraordinary influence over key officials in the White House and Congress has fueled the disinformation campaign and helped to forestall federal action to reduce U.S. global warming emissions. As the new Congress convenes in 2007, it’s time to tell our senators and representatives to reject ExxonMobil’s misleading campaign.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has taken an important first step by calling for the immediate elimination of tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major oil companies. The Senate should embrace this commitment as well, and the money saved should be redirected to support clean energy programs.

Recently I have written about energy policy at some length, including about how Democrats are the Party with ideas on energy policy, and how clean alternative energy has many benefits for America: reducing pollution and carbon dioxide, creation of local, American jobs, and energy independence. One of my articles was seen by people at the Union of Concerned Scientists and they wrote me to agree with me and send me their statement on the issue. Here is their statement with some links to useful resources:

More States Tackle Global Warming with New and Improved Renewable Standards; Odds of Federal Action Increase

Overshadowed in last week's election was news that the state of Washington became the 21st state plus the District of Columbia to adopt a renewable electricity standard, and the second state to do so via a ballot initiative. Under the provisions of I-937 (known as the "Clean Energy Initiative"), the state's largest utilities will be required to furnish 15 percent of their electricity generation from renewable sources by 2015. In addition, the initiative requires Washington utilities to pursue low-cost energy conservation opportunities with their customers.

Washington voters have created a long-term market for clean energy technologies in their state, a significant step forward in reducing power plant production of heat-trapping gases responsible for global warming. According to a study of the initiative by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), I-937 would result in cutting 4.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually by 2025 - equivalent to taking 750,000 cars off the road.

Sometimes things just come together and several individual items that don't quite add up to a story unite into a really good one.

This last week, a discussion with someone who grew up in Iowa, this month's issue of Catalyst, the newsletter of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a press release from Nancy Pelosi all synergized to remind me that Democrats have been pushing for a real, American, practical energy policy since the Carter administration and all the Republicans advocate for are oil, oil, oil.

On October 26th, in response to the release of record profits by the bloated oil company Exxon/Mobil, Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement:

"Today’s record oil company profits remind Americans that Republicans’ energy policies, which were written in secret by the Cheney Task Force and the energy industry, are an abject failure for the American people. Their six-year record of heaping subsidies on oil companies reaping record profits while leaving consumers to pay the bill, has brought us record dependence on foreign oil.

“Under President Bush and the Republican Congress gas prices are 75 percent higher than in 2000, consumers will pay an average $2,300 more in energy costs than they did in 2000, and we are sending nearly $800 million a day to the Middle East and other oil producing countries.”