Category Archives: Policy & Regulation

The Climate Interactive Scoreboard

Posted on by
Reply

Prior to the recent Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen a great many nations announced proposals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The proposals were varied and covered many different base and target years making for very difficult and complex analysis.

A simulator was created to effectively handle the analysis, add up the proposed greenhouse gas reduction goals for every nation, and calculate the temperature increase expected in 2100. It generates a value for expected temperature rise and a range depending on how strongly temperature responds to emissions. The simulator was built by Sustainability Institute, Ventana Systems, and MIT.

The following live graphic, the Climate Interactive Scoreboard, is a visual representation of the simulator’s results and updates interactively when proposals change.

What are the goals to limit temperature rise?

Although there are no binding commitments in the Copenhagen Accord, the Parties agreed to take action to meet the objective of holding the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. This is the temperature rise above the pre-industrial level considered the threshold for ‘dangerous climate change’.

The Accord also references strengthening long-term goals “in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius”, an acknowledgement of the concerns of small island states and other low-lying nations who have been calling for a 1.5°C limit to the rise in global average temperature.

How do the national proposals stack up against the goals?

An analysis of national proposals just prior to COP15 projected a temperature rise of 3.9°C by 2100 which is lower than “business as usual” and indicates progress is being made. But it also shows we have much further to go.

The Copenhagen Accord requires Annex 1 Parties (developed countries) to submit “quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020”, and developing country Parties to submit “nationally-appropriate mitigation actions” to the UNFCCC Secretariat by January 31, 2010.

This could result in significant changes to the Climate Interactive Scoreboard.

In short order, the simulator has become an important tool in both the negotiations and for countries setting targets.

The U.S. Department of State is using the simulator to understand the impacts of country proposals and to share their findings with other parties to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework on Climate Change). Jonathan Pershing, the senior U.S. climate negotiator, demonstrated its capabilities to the Parties meeting in Bonn earlier last year. It was also demonstrated at the U.S. Center at COP15 in Copenhagen.

Without action the global average temperature will rise above pre-industrial levels, and possibly at an accelerated rate. As a Climate Interactive Scoreboard video (click link in upper right corner of graphic) explains, “preventing temperature increase would mean safer coastal cities, more surviving species, increased food security, more access to freshwater, improved public health, and improved security for all.”

Visit our home page (or this post) frequently, especially in the next couple of weeks, to see the changes for yourself.

What will be the January 31st reading? Wouldn’t it be great if the national proposals bring the temperature in 2100 down from today’s reading of 3.9 degrees Celsius.

Where’s the action on climate change in the U.S.?

Posted on by
Reply

My reply to another comment on the post No Kyoto Protocol for the United States:

Most Americans are very concerned about climate change. It is a smaller percentage who are not. Even the United States is threatened by coastal inundation but the threats are largely ignored by the press and therefore not communicated to its citizens. Third Planet is making some progress on public awareness but we are a small organization and it is not enough.

For example my local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union, did publish the following letter I wrote them in November:

Protect the buffers

Although “Rising seas could soak taxpayers, study says” is a news story that no one wants to read, it is a subject we might ignore at our peril.

The prudent approach for government in their planning scenarios is to take a much harder look at the 100-year floodplain, existing wetlands and low-lying agricultural lands, and consider these as ground zero upon which all future development must be based.

Ultimately the reinsurance industry will have a much louder voice about which developments can be insured. It just plain makes sense to give tidal wetlands, and the valuable services they provide to humans, the room to retreat with the possible onset of rising sea levels.

In Louisiana, for example, coastal wetlands and the buffer they provide against hurricanes are being eroded at a rate of 1 acre every 30 to 40 minutes.

It is time we started applying the precautionary principle to the expensive development decisions we are making, particularly in light of the Reality Check development exercises that have been underway in Northeast Florida for the past six months. (Florida Times-Union letter)

We don’t know if our concerns will be considered by our local planning community in their development decisions, or not. We only know that while Florida is threatened it is not our survival that is at stake—for the time-being.

We can only hope that we all come to our senses on the global implications of climate change before it is far too late.

The precautionary principle must drive action on climate change

Posted on by
Reply

The following is my reply to comments on the post No Kyoto Protocol for the United States:

I can empathize with your frustrations, however I don’t believe that “analysis” of what the other side of the climate debate might be thinking or doing is productive toward a solution in the short term. And the short term has now become critical in terms of limiting the prospects of abrupt climate change.

I wrote specifically about the U.S. position toward the Kyoto Protocol in the context of COP15. But there are many other reasons why the Senate would hold up debate on any climate change treaty, Kyoto Protocol or otherwise, including Senators from the President’s own party.

For example, as The New York Times reported this morning, a group of 10 Democratic Senators wrote to the President two weeks ago. They warned, in effect, that if border carbon tariffs are not imposed on imports from foreign countries that have no requirement for limiting their emissions, a treaty could not be ratified.

They argue that American jobs would be at stake and their case is directed toward Chinese imports in particular. How that plays out at COP15 is anyone’s guess and might come down to an eleventh hour negotiating session between the U.S. and China, the main protagonists.

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not just the Kyoto Protocol at stake in driving the actions of the Senate.

My position all along is quite different from assigning analysis to the problems of debate about climate change.

My position quite simply is to make the case for application of a precautionary principle. The engineer in me says that if I want to insure against possible losses caused by climate change I don’t have a chance of securing insurance unless I can demonstrate that every precaution has first been taken to protect the investment.

If 80% of the science tells me global warming is happening and 20% tells me it’s not, I have enough common sense to take a precautionary stance on climate change and do everything in my power to stop it. To ignore it given the balance of evidence to the contrary is not only reckless, it’s just plain stupid.

Global village under siege

Posted on by
Reply

Sunday’s news that there would not be a binding climate change agreement negotiated in Copenhagen prompted my friend Angela to write: “Won’t an agreement at the end of 2010 be too late vis-à-vis slowing down ocean acidification?”

Unfortunately the answer is “yes”, but it was too late years ago.

What we’re attempting to do now, at COP15 and beyond, is to slow the enemy down. Average global mean temperature rise over time is the enemy, and the rate at which the temperature rises can actually be considered the best indicator of how well or how bad we’re doing in our efforts. Increasing temperatures by 2°C is really bad but 6°C is catastrophic, and according to the authoritative World Energy Outlook 2009 reference scenario (business as usual) we’re headed to 6°C without a “complete and rapid transformation of the energy sector”.

But what does this technical gobbledygook really mean? How might we rewrite it in terms that more people can understand? I read a Public Agenda report recently where it said “Nearly 4 in 10 Americans (39 percent of respondents) cannot name a fossil fuel”. That statement is a clear indication of the challenges we face. And it’s downright scary. Given that public awareness is critically important to politics and climate change is a problem wanting a political solution, how do we reach more people in language they will understand?

Here’s a thought experiment.

Imagine you’re in Europe 900 years ago living in a fortress city, and the equivalent of the 2°C threat to our city is enemy invaders 2,000 foot soldiers strong. They’re a few years away from our global village but relentlessly marching toward us. Scouts tell us their numbers are being steadily reinforced and we can eventually expect a force of 6,000 attackers to lay a permanent siege on the city. (Yes, you got it, 6°C.) The threat is that our global village will be captured by the 6,000 occupiers and our lives changed forever in calamitous ways. At the planetary level that’s “hundreds of millions of people being displaced from their homes, massive water and food shortages, widespread mortality of ecosystems and species, and substantial human health risks” (WEO2009).

We know the only chance we have of survival is to slow down the advance of those first 2,000 enemy soldiers before they reach our walls, giving us time to work on our defenses. But we have been paralyzed in coming up with a defensive strategy. Many people don’t want to hear it, the scouts must be wrong, and many don’t even know the enemy exists.

But here we are. The enemy marches on and is becoming emboldened. Our scouts are reporting that without any organized resistance the enemy is picking up the pace of the assault.

They’re now on horses and galloping toward us.

Promoting cogeneration at EGSA in San Antonio

Posted on by
Reply

On Monday, March 16th, I’ll be speaking about A Fresh Approach for Developing New Cogeneration Markets in a Carbon-Constrained World to the members of The Electrical Generating Systems Association (EGSA) at their Annual Spring Convention in San Antonio, Texas.

Their website (www.egsa.org) tells us that:

“The Electrical Generating Systems Association (EGSA) is the world’s largest organization exclusively dedicated to On-Site Power Generation. The Association is comprised of over 500 companies—Manufacturers, Distributor/Dealers, Contractors/Integrators, Manufacturer’s Representatives, Consulting & Specifying Engineers, Service firms, End-Users and others—throughout the U.S. and around the world that make, sell, distribute and use On-Site Power generation technology and equipment, including generators, engines, switchgear, controls, voltage regulators, governors and much more”.

I’ve been familiar with the work of EGSA members for over 35 years, since I first arrived in Canada from the UK and as a cogeneration sales engineer in the United States’ engine industry. They are my peers and I’m honored by the opportunity to speak to them on what I consider to be a crucial topic in these challenging climate change and power generation times.

Speaking from personal experience and an in-depth knowledge of the greenhouse gas threat, there’s no doubt in my mind that cogeneration (aka CHP or combined heat and power) is the most important near-term baseload power application we can deploy today. But we must begin seeing applications as part of a much bigger greenhouse gas management picture — beyond individual technologies and the limiting industrial and campus applications we hear so much about.

Why must we do this, what is the bigger picture, what are the applications, and how might we grow this new market given the regulatory environment that’s taking shape? I have some ideas on the subject and I’m looking forward to hearing what my peers have to say about them.

More later …