local warming

US to announce new fuel emissions standards

2009-05-18T15:17:00.002-05:00

You knew it was coming. As early as Tuesday this week, according to the New York Times, President Obama is going to announce new national standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles. I quote items from the article:

As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
The president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states [including Maryland -s] and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single mileage rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard. Under that new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.

Next up: cap-and-trade.

Yes we can afford to curb climate change

2009-05-01T12:48:00.004-05:00

Today's editorial by Paul Krugman on cap-and trade is very well written and exposes the fallacious arguments on both sides of the cap-and-trade argument. On the left, you have greenies saying that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will involve no pain on the part of consumer. On the right you have arguments that the consumer's pocketbook will catch on fire. Neither is true. Though I don't always agree with Krugman (not that my opinion matters much; he has a Nobel and I have a blog) I do think we occupy a similar chasm; we are not joiners. People do not come to us for support but the media likes to ask us for our opinions. I was thinking about this in my own case and wondering if I could find a better way to be part of a movement but I think my drive for independent thinking continually keeps me on the outside.

Anyway, Krugman argues that the costs of cap-and-trade will be borne by anyone who uses fossil fuels that are regulated. This is only common sense. It is also common sense that these costs would not be more than the price of carbon per ton. He also explains how these costs will be phased in over time, and how the price pressures might encourage investment in substitutions. None of this is new and we have talked about it since forever. But he did say the following novel thing (emphasis mine):

To put it another way, a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.

I like it when people make me think.

US "ready to lead" on climate change

2009-04-28T08:46:00.002-05:00

From the New York Times online:

WASHINGTON — After eight years largely on the sidelines of the international policy debate on climate change, the United States is prepared to lead negotiations toward a new global warming treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday.

“The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad,” Mrs. Clinton told delegates from 16 countries at a State Department conference on energy and climate. “We are back in the game.”

The meeting in Washington was the first of three planned sessions among the participating countries, who together account for roughly 75 percent of emissions of the gases blamed for the heating of the planet. Officials said the conference, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, was intended to supplement, not replace, broader talks that begin in Copenhagen in December to write a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

It's about time.

Climate change news: API and cronies lied

2009-04-24T13:02:00.004-05:00

It's hard to keep up with climate change news, these days, and I think that's a good thing. It used to be that you could write a blog about climate change and comfortably cover the main points on many fronts; we are at a critical mass. I feel like the strength of Local Warming is the focus on how individuals can save energy, money and greenhouse gases. I have also volunteered to help a local church with an energy audit so that I can become better versed in this topic to share with many of you who run commercial/institutional facilities.

But I still love the news. I especially love reading about climate news on the front page of the New York Times website:

First, NYT reports that a document filed in a lawsuit has produced "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer," an internal document written for the American Petroleum Institute and its cronies in the Global Climate Coalition. This document shows that in 1995, GCC was fully aware that humans were increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that would cause global climate change, though they debated if such climate change was already occurring. The report states unequivocally that:

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

Why does this matter? It matters because people who stood to make a profit from the consumption of fossil fuels lied to the public and to regulators about the risks from greenhouse gases. It also diminishes the standing that groups like API and the GCC have now that allow skeptics and deniers to continue to prevent us from acting on our own behalf.

Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.

In other words, the obstruction of action in regards to climate change was a jaded ploy to make money at the expense of the public and the health of the planet, and it continues today. Let's change this sooner rather than later.

Carbonless energy for Pepco, BGE <$ than coal

2009-04-24T08:25:00.003-05:00

If you use BGE or Pepco, CleanCurrents is offering "a new carbon neutral electricity option for people in the Chesapeake region. C-Green combines standard electricity from the Mid Atlantic grid (the PJM grid) with Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs” or “green tags”) from wind farms situated across the United States, bundled together and supplied by Washington Gas Energy Services, a licensed retail energy supplier in MD and DC. This bundled product helps fight global warming by offsetting the carbon emissions from your electricity use with clean, renewable wind power." According to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, this is cheaper than coal power in the region.

If you live in Montgomery County you can get this in addition to the cheap, clean power:

SPECIAL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD RESIDENTS
The Montgomery County Clean Energy Rewards Program gives county residents a reward of a 1/2 cent per kWh (.5¢ or $.005) for up to 20,000 kWh of clean energy purchased. Clean Currents was a founding member of the program with RECs and C-Green.

More Catholics think global warming manmade

2009-04-24T08:17:00.005-05:00

The elections are over, but FiveThirtyEight.com is still going strong. A recent post by Nate Silver called The Pope and the Planet caught my eye: "The institution of the Catholic Church is often unpopular with liberals for its position on issues like family planning, but it can also be a force for social progress. In particular, the first thing I noticed from this Gallup survey on attitudes toward global warming is that the percentage of persons who think global warming is manmade appears to be much higher in predominately Catholic nations than in Protestant ones...In majority-Catholic nations, on average, 65 percent of adults believe that global warming is manmade, versus 47 percent in Protestant ones (the figure for the United States, which has a Protestant majority, is 49 percent). Countries with an Orthodox majority are somewhere in the middle, as are those where a majority is Christian, but neither Catholic or Protestant theologies predominate. Buddhist countries also seem more inclined toward environmental protection; Islamic ones appear less so." Nate and I both attribute this to the actions of the Pope, who has been extremely outspoken about the need to curb manmade global warming.

Five energy saving products for Earth Day

2009-04-22T15:44:00.002-05:00

Happy Earth Day! In celebration I thought I would highlight five products that I have come across that I think could save energy, save money, and save greenhouse gases. These are culled from a much larger list of products. In most cases, I have either tried them myself or know someone who has tried them. I am not a big product promoter and am not making money off of these. But they stand out. I still think most of these products are too expensive for the average consumer, but I am going to run some numbers to see what the payback periods are for them.

1. Earth LED EvoLux bulbs: They turn on quickly like incandescents, and fit in a regular fixture. 13 watts at a 100 watt equivalent. At $80 a piece, these are pretty expensive. Over 10 years at an electricity cost of $0.10/kwh, each one would save you $212.76 including the averted cost of replacement light bulbs. These are the first LED lights for home uses that glow like an incandescent bulb.
2. CREE recessed LED down light: These award-winning lamps put out a solid glow that looks like an incandescent fixture. The intial cost is $130, about $100 more than a standard can light. But over ten years using one bulb 8 hours a day, you will save $196.20 in electricity and bulb replacement savings. The payoff is about 3 years, 3 months if your electricity costs $0.10/kwh.
3. Athalon LED exit light replacement: Replace the incandescent bulbs in your exit lights. They stay on all the time so the savings really add up. They cost about $12.95. One watt versus the 20w standard, on for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and you'll save 166o kilowatts every ten years. You'll also save $160 in electricity in ten years, plus the $18.75 in replacement bulbs minus your original bulb cost of $12.95, for a total of $165.80 . About 9.4 month payback period.
4. ScanGaugeII: Not only can this meter give you real-time mpg feedback (like what you would get on a Prius) to make you change your driving habits, it also can read diagnostic codes for your vehicle. My dad discovered he had a bad O2 sensor, and replaced it himself. He saved the cost of going to a shop, plus the vehicle runs more efficiently. Costs about $159. Estimates on savings vary. I am testing this out with a Boy Scout Venture Crew as part of an energy saving project they are doing, and will let you know.
5. Belkin Remote Control Power Strips: Yes, we know we should use power strips with surge protectors, and we do, but they are difficult to reach. Not any more. Cost- about $50. Savings- I assume you're using a power strip already, so the remote is about convenience. But if you're not, you'll save vampire power from whatever you plug into the strip.

BREAKING: EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger US

2009-04-17T12:36:00.002-05:00

From the Environmental Defense Fund:

*** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS *** BREAKING NEWS ***

EPA formally declares global warming to be a threat to Americans' health and well-being.

In an historic decision moments ago, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a proposed ruling that global warming pollution "endangers" Americans' health and well-being.

Today's action sets the stage for using authority under the Clean Air Act to establish national emission standards for large global warming emitters.

EDF's deputy general counsel Vickie Patton says that with today's announcement, "The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change. EPA's action is a wake up-call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future."

The EPA is now expected to begin developing national emission standards for new motor vehicles and new coal-fired power plants, the nation's two largest sources of global warming pollution.

Today's action comes as Congress prepares to take its own historic steps toward enacting a cap on global warming pollution.

Next week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearings on comprehensive energy and climate legislation and move quickly to a vote on the bill. Chairman Henry Waxman has committed to moving the bill -- the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- out of committee by Memorial Day.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she intends to bring the bill to the House floor this year.

George Will blasted over climate editorials

2009-04-10T13:24:00.002-05:00

From Friends of the Earth:

In late February, after George Will published an erroneous and misleading Washington Post column attempting to sow confusion about global warming science, more than 5,000 Friends of the Earth activists contacted the Post's ombudsman and demanded a correction. The paper refused to issue one, but now numerous Washington Post employees -- including some of its news reporters -- are publicly criticizing Will.
In just the last week, reporters Mary Beth Sheridan and Juliet Eilperin called Will out in a news column reporting on recent Arctic ice melts, Post "Weather Gang" writer Andrew Freedman called Will's assertions "misleading,"Post columnist Eugene Robinson criticized Will on national television, and Post cartoonist Tom Toles mocked Will in a sketch. We can only hope Will pays attention to his colleagues and stops lying about the climate crisis.

The right always claims that climate skeptics are libeled and slandered when they attempt to express an unpopular opinion. Certainly people have jumped on George Will. But are they slandering him? Or are they exposing that his writing is ill-informed and misleading?

Obama team changes US tune on climate change

2009-03-30T13:31:00.003-05:00

This time around, the U.N. climate talks look quite different. According to MSNBC, the Obama Administration has made some pretty compelling statements.

Sunday...President Barack Obama's envoy pledged to "make up for lost time" in reaching a global agreement on climate change.
Todd Stern also praised efforts by countries like China to reign in their carbon emissions, but said global warming "requires a global response" and that rapidly developing economies like China "must join together" with the industrial world to solve the problem.
"We are very glad to be back. We want to make up for lost time, and we are seized with the urgency of the task before us," Stern said to loud applause from the 2,600 delegates to the U.N. negotiations.
They clapped again when Stern said the U.S. recognized "our unique responsibility ... as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases," which has created a problem threatening the entire world.
Stern said no one on his team doubted that climate change is real. "The science is clear, the threat is real, the facts on the ground are outstripping the worst-case scenarios. The cost of inaction or inadequate action are unacceptable," he said — a total change of tone from his predecessors.
"America itself cannot provide the solution, but there is no solution without America," he said.

Greenhouse gas bill passes MD legislature

2009-03-27T16:06:00.001-05:00

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network reports that "the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act passed the House of Delegates today! Since it passed the Senate earlier this month, all that lies between Maryland and comprehensive global warming policy is Governor O'Malley's signature! "

MD climate bill likely to pass House

2009-03-27T11:03:00.003-05:00

According to Baltimore Sun's Bay and Environment Blog, the Maryland "House of Delegates gave preliminary approval...to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act, turning aside a "killer" amendment offered by the chamber's Republican leader." The blog further asserts that the bill is likely to pass, having already passed the Senate as "a parallel measure."

The bill is likely to be successful this year because it exempts manufacturing from emissions controls. "Del. Brian McHale, a Baltimore Democrat supporting the bill...said manufacturers produced only a small share of the greenhouse gases, and they were exempted to spare them from being put at a competitive disadvantage with factories in other states lacking greenhouse gas regulations. "

Obama to shelve cap-and-trade, pushes green NRG

2009-03-25T08:00:00.003-05:00

Last night's Presidential press talk was a moment for the global warming wonks like myself. First, I got to hear over and over that the President considers climate change/pollution/renewable energy to be one of his top three issues, and hear the issue presented as a pillar of economic recovery. Second, I got to hear a member of the media ask President Obama about how determined he is to pass a cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases.

Though the New York Times this morning says that Obama has indicated he is willing to shelve the bill (from the President:"The bottom line is, is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit."), what we also heard from the President last night is his dogged determination to get it passed, and to reinvent the engine of the economy. We also heard the president include for the first time many members of the media like the Black and Latino presses, that typically are not heard. This decision is inclusive, but more than that, allows the President to reconstruct a narrative for the public that is not dominated by the media cabal. As the New York times noted, the President did not take answers from mainstream papers last night. And as many noted the previous evening, the President did not preside over the annual Gridiron dinner by and for the press. What you have seen the past week is an attempt by the president to speak directly to the people on issues that he is going to be hammering over and over. And luckily, one of those issues is of interest to us here.

Quotes from the President's press conference on renewable energy/clean energy:

We invest in the renewable sources of energy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and less dependence on foreign oil. We invest in our schools and our teachers, so that our children have the skills they need to compete with any workers in the world.
At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest. And that's what clean energy jobs and businesses will do all across America.
What I've said here in Washington is that we've got to make some tough choices. We've got to make some tough budgetary choices. What we can't do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth, investments that are critical to the future, and that's why my budget focuses on health care, energy, education, the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth, as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we've seen over the last several years.
I've said that we've got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy...When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we've got to move to a new energy era, and that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth. I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere. The way it's structured has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through. Our point in the budget is: Let's get started now. We can't wait. And my expectation is that the Energy Committees or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It will be authorized. We'll get it done. And I will sign it. OK?
[about the President's budget] The bottom line is, is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit...what I said was that I haven't seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is, is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit.
Now, none of us knows exactly what's going to happen 6 or 8 or 10 years from now. Here's what I do know: If we don't tackle energy, if we don't improve our education system, if we don't drive down the costs of health care, if we're not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won't grow 2.6 percent, we won't grow 2.2 percent. We won't grow.
But I'm – look, I'm not going to lie to you. It is tough. As I said, that's why the critics tend to criticize, but they don't offer an alternative budget. Because even if we were not doing health care, we were not doing energy, we were not doing education, they'd still have a whole bunch of problems in those out-years, according to CBO projections. The only difference is that we will not have invested in what's necessary to make this economy grow.
Now, the alternative is to stand pat and to simply say, we are just going to not invest in health care. We're not going to take on energy. We'll wait until the next time that gas gets to $4 a gallon. We will not improve our schools. And we'll allow China or India or other countries to lap our young people in terms of their performance. We will settle on lower growth rates, and we will continue to contract, both as an economy and our ability to – to provide a better life for our kids.
I think that when it comes to domestic affairs, if we keep on working at it, if we acknowledge that we make mistakes sometimes, and that we don't always have the right answer, and we're inheriting very knotty problems, that we can pass health care, we can find better solutions to our energy challenges, we can teach our children more effectively, we can deal with a very real budget crisis that is not fully dealt with in my, in my budget at this point, but makes progress.

EPA finds GHGs endanger humans

2009-03-23T15:56:00.004-05:00

From the New York Times:

The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to declare that greenhouse gases are pollutants that pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare. That determination, once made final, will pave the way for federal regulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.

This endangerment finding is significant because it triggers the Clean Air Act and "would allow federal regulation of motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. If further action is taken by the E.P.A., it could open the door to regulatory controls over power plants, oil refineries, cement plants and other factories that emit such gases."

This is happening at the same time that the Maryland legislation is being considered in the House, after passing in the Senate. The MD legislation exempts manufacturing.

Representative Ed Markey stated that "this finding will officially end the era of denial on global warming.” But I doubt this could be true since we are still fighting over evolution. But if the finding marginalizes the anti-science wackadoos further, so that we win more of the people in the middle, then hooray!

The Obama Administration is already counting on revenue from a Cap-and-Trade system, so the deck has been stacked. Expect more findings and decisions to start rolling out.

Finally, some climate literacy

2009-03-19T15:25:00.002-05:00

Tired of people saying that global warming can't be real because today is cold? Or because this winter is colder than last winter? Or any of a number of other arguments that show a complete misunderstanding of climate science, or scientific principles in general? NOAA has published "Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Sciences," a publication which claims that "CLIMATE SCIENCE LITERACY IS A PART OF SCIENCE LITERACY." Do I sense a reaction to right-wing ideology here? The publication discusses some topics like "consensus" and "peer review", issues of basic scientific literacy which determine if someone is worth listening to in regards to the issue of global warming. Perhaps you can hand this out the next time you hear someone loudly proselytizing about how global warming is a hoax.

"No, my friend, it is science."

Nuclear waste mgmt hampers alternative energy

2009-03-18T10:22:00.003-05:00

An Op-Ed in today's New York Times by Stephanie Cook asserts that the Energy Department is so overwhelmed with the maintenance of over 1000 cold war-era weapons sites that it can't focus on alternative energy. For the Energy Department, "approximately two-thirds of its annual budget, which is roughly $27 billion, is spent on...managing the thousands of facilities involved in producing nuclear weapons during the cold war, and the associated cleanup of dozens of contaminated sites." The piece also claims that the continuing link to nuclear weapons labs prevents more energy money from actually going into the development of alternatives. It proposes that nuclear waste be the provenance of another governing body, and suggests a few.

For me, this editorial is a reminder that the solutions to our energy problems are highly complex. I worry for this administration; even if it has the best of intentions, it still has to catch the tiger by its tail. No one else has done this, and I see why. The complexities and dependencies created by past obligations and precedents are so strong. The article also reminds me that it is always the people, often in the form of government, who pay for the externalities of nuclear. Isn't it time that we moved forward to forms of energy that will not leave us with legacies that we will be paying for later?

Personal carbon reductions in March Nat Geo

2009-03-16T21:49:00.002-05:00

I was at the grocery store this weekend when I saw the cover of the March National Geographic about energy conservation. I knew instantly it must have been written by Peter Miller, who came to our first Carbon Reduction Action Group meeting back in November 2007. I emailed him to thank him for the article, in which he describes the efforts of his family and friends to reduce their energy consumption, costs, and greenhouse gases. He asked how our CRAG is doing and if we had gathered momentum. I told him that there are about 10 people interested in tracking their emissions. Other people come to meetings to hear speakers, which I think is also good.

We have not yet counted our emissions from last year, and I need to get on the ball with setting up a tour at the house of a local planner who did what he self-termed "LEED Stainless Steel" in an attempt to build a green home.

I am thinking April would be good.

NYT editorial blasts bush for ideology on GW

2009-03-10T15:56:00.004-05:00

It's easy for the New York Times to say this now that the political winds have changed:

Mr. Obama also pledged on Monday to base his administration’s policy decisions on sound science, undistorted by politics or ideology. He ordered his science office to develop a plan for all government agencies to achieve that goal.
Such a pledge should be unnecessary. Unfortunately, for eight years, former President George W. Bush did just the opposite. He chose scientific advisory committees based on ideology rather than expertise. His political appointees aggressively ignored, distorted or suppressed scientific findings to promote a political agenda or curry favor with big business.
This cynical approach seriously hampered government efforts to address global warming and encourage sound family planning practices, among other issues.

Nevertheless, it is good to hear. But the lesson I have learned about the media from all of this is that it only publishes what it has the courage to publish, not what it perceives to be true. And what it has the courage to publish depends on who has the money and the power.

I have mixed feelings about the splintering of the media and the death of the newspaper. On the one hand we have this issue of cowardice that has been confronted by alternative media and blogs. On the other hand, we are losing journalistic standards and large pipelines of information that give people a common culture and news reference. As the media splinters, so does its audience. This allows for groups to self-identify but it also prevents them from finding common ground. Global warming is a perfect example of a problem that requires us to pull together, not apart.

White House counts on GHG revenue by 2012

2009-03-09T10:31:00.005-05:00

Perusing Yosi Sergeant's facebook page, I learned that the White House Office of the Public Liaison invited 30 members of the "Summit Series" to visit the White House on March 11. The group is self-described as "a community of the world's top young entrepreneurs, innovators and influencers." Its members are under 40 and include:

Jake Nickell from Threadless
Evan Williams with Twitter
Mark Ecko from Ecko
Michael Chasen from Blackboard
Chris Sacca from Lowercase Capital
Tony Hsieh from Zappos
Aaron Patzer from Mint.com
Ben Kauffman from Kluster
Josh Abramson from College Humor

That's to give you a flavor of the place these people occupy in influencing culture. They were asked to listen to the President's agenda and figure out ways to promote it in in their work. The issues, according to attendee Ryan Allis' facebook page:

job creation
the economy
energy
health care
transparency
new media
building relationships

Climate change was specifically mentioned in a presentation from Heather Zichal, White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. The following points were made, again according to Allis:

In response to question on solar power and home owners selling energy back to grid: We will think about homeowners selling electricity back to the grid.
We are focused on energy and climate change.
Administration making a commitment to CAFE standards and reducing dependency on foreign oil
Cap and trade revenues to start in 2012 according to budget

I am very heartened to see that the White House is aware of the need for distributed energy production that pays producers and decentralizes risk. Of course we are already aware of EPA's plans with CAFE standards, so this is nothing new. And yes, you saw the last bullet. The White House is expecting Cap and Trade legislation to pass, and for revenues to begin in 2012. Considering the gap in the public consciousness on this issue, it is no surprise that the White House is enlisting the help of successful young entrepreneurs to spread the message.

The attendees were asked to:

Act as a filter/community ambassador for the best ideas/suggestions/thoughts on what we can do on the economy, budget, energy, healthcare, education, and new media. Get feedback from your community and send the best to us from time-to-time in summarized, bulleted form.
Send any examples/anecdotes/stories that we hear of due to investments from the Stimulus making a positive impact in your community.
Send any ideas/suggestions/thoughts on how to make government more transparent and open.

This is a very smart administration.

MD Senate passes GHG reduction bill

2009-03-06T16:05:00.004-05:00

Senate Bill 278, also known as the "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009" passed its third reading on 3/2 and is now being read in the House "Economic Matters & Environmental Matters" committee. The synopsis of the bill:

Requiring the Department of the Environment to publish and update an inventory of statewide greenhouse gas emissions for calendar year 2006; requiring the State to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 2006 levels by 2020; requiring the State to develop and adopt a specified plan, adopt specified regulations, and implement specified programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; altering specified requirements; providing for the termination of a specified provision of the Act; etc.

Specifics:

Would have the General Assembly find that Greenhouse Gases "are air pollutants that threaten to endanger the public health and welfare of the people of Maryland." This is key to regulating these gases under the Clean Air Act, so there is at least one secondary motive.
Requires a greenhouse gas emissions inventory for 2006 and would attempt to reduce greenhouse gases from 2006 levels 25% by 2020 and up to 90% reductions by 2050. It also recommends but does not require 10% by 2012 and 15% by 2015.
Endorses "clean energy" sources including wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy.
Acknowledges that a cap on greenhouse gas emissions is most effective at the federal level and exempts the manufacturing, freight carrying, and electricity generation sectors due to the potential for competitive losses between states. Manufacturing has an incredibly broad definition that includes things like feed mills, clerical activities, and service activities. Manufacturing is not exempt, however, from the requirements of other laws like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or any reporting requirements.
Addresses leakage, where reductions of greenhouse gases within the state would cause increases in another state.
Credits source reductions enacted prior to the writing of the plan and provides for "early action credits".
Allows offsets including carbon sequestration (if and when it exists)
Requires a net economic benefit to the state
Encourages new employment through green jobs
Requires the inventory be conducted by an institution of higher learning
Creates a task force.

Low cost and carbon neutral home retrofits

2009-03-05T10:11:00.001-05:00

I found a cool blog where the author talks about how she turned her apartment in Barcelona into a carbon-neutral one. I reminds me of when I used to get Ready Made Magazine, except greener. Some ideas, like reusing old thingsand buying local food are obvious. Some are silly, or impossible to get because we live in the States. But the tone is fun and there are lots of ideas to riff off of. Enjoy!

Some cool ideas:

Steelcase THINK chair
Jaga energy savers radiators for condensing oil burners
cork floors (I have and highly recommend)
recycled plastic slate bathroom tiles
urban gardening
DIY lamps and glowing stools

Free climate change talk in Shepherdstown 3/4

2009-03-03T11:17:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm, mountaineer and geographer Forrest McCarthy will present a Arctic Alaska: A Photographic Journey in a Changing Landscape in the Byrd Auditorium at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) in Shepherdstown, WV.

McCarthys pioneering work utilized historic photos and contemporary excursions to chronicle the significant changes occurring over the last hundred years in arctic landscapes. Global climate change was visible on glaciers, tree cover, and watersheds. The character of these observations describes a landscape-wide response to observed changes in the arctic climate and suggests the nature of future environmental responses to global warming.

Forrest McCarthy has been a wilderness advocate and backcountry skier for more than 20 years. As Public Lands Director for the Winter Wildlands Alliance he couples his zest for backcountry skiing with his passion for conservation. Forrest received a Bachelors Degree in Outdoor Education from Prescott College and a Masters Degree in Geography from the University of Wyoming. He is a senior guide with Exum Mountain Guides and has led expeditions from Alaskas Mount McKinley to the Central Plateau of Antarctica. Before joining Winter Wildlands Alliance, he was the Jackson Hole Wildlands Organizer for the Wyoming Wilderness Association.

The talk is free and open to the public. The NCTC is located at 698 Conservation Way along Shepherd Grade Rd. in Shepherdstown, WV 25443 approximately 70 miles west of Washington and Baltimore. No tickets or reservations are required. For more information on the series please visit: http://training.fws.gov/history/publiclectures.html or contact Mark Madison (Mark_Madison@fws.gov; 304 876-7276).

Frederick MD seeks Clean Energy Center

2009-02-26T10:31:00.001-05:00

MEDIA ADVISORY

President Jan Gardner and Vice President David Gray of the Frederick Board of County Commissioners will join officials from The City of Frederick, Frederick Innovative Technology Center, Inc., (FITCI) and Hood College to lead the Maryland Clean Energy Center Board of Directors Site Selection Committee in a tour of Frederick County.

The tour will start today at the Whitaker Campus Center lobby, 401 Rosemont Avenue, Frederick, Md., at Hood College at 11:50 a.m., followed by a tour of the FITCI office space, located in nearby Rosenstock Hall. The FITCI office space has been proposed for the future headquarters of the Maryland Clean Energy Center by Frederick County and its partners.

The Frederick Board of County Commissioners has expressed unanimous support to establish the headquarters for the Maryland Clean Energy Center in Frederick County.

For further information on the Frederick County Government proposal, visit www.co.frederick.md.us/cleanenergy.

Hilarious fake clean coal ad from Coen Brothers

2009-02-26T09:48:00.001-05:00

NASA climate change satellite crashes to Earth

2009-02-24T16:28:00.004-05:00

MSNBC reports that today's launch of NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory was a failure. I don't feel like talking about it because it makes me sad so I am just going to quote the article:

A shroud designed to protect the spacecraft accidentally doomed its mission.

The glitch occurred just minutes after the $273.4 million spacecraft blasted off at 4:55 a.m. ET atop a Taurus XL rocket launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California....

The 972-pound (441-kilogram) OCO spacecraft was NASA's first satellite built exclusively to map carbon dioxide levels on Earth and understand how humanity's contribution of the greenhouse gas is affecting global climate change. The satellite carried a single three-channel spectrometer to make its detailed measurements and was slated to launch into a near-polar, sun-synchronous orbit that would fly about 438 miles (705 kilometers) above Earth...

The first sign of trouble came about three minutes after liftoff, when the Taurus XL rocket's telemetry showed no sign that it had shed its clamshell-like payload fairing.

The fairing is a nose-mounted shroud that protects the spacecraft inside from atmospheric drag until the booster reaches space. If the fairing had separated, launch controllers would have expected to see the spacecraft and its upper stage accelerate more quickly, since it would have shed the excess weight. But that speed boost never occurred.

"As a direct result of carrying that extra weight, we could not make orbit," Brunschwyler [Taurus project manager for the Dulles, Va.-based rocket manufacturer Orbital Sciences] said, adding that the failure ultimately sent OCO crashing into the ocean near Antarctica. "We're fairly certain that it did not fly over any land and it landed short of Antarctica."