If Done Right, Biomass Energy Could Help Combat Global Warming

Jeff Gibbs is right to be concerned about using trees and "woody" biomass for renewable electricity. As he correctly points out, timber harvesting too often is destructive, and we need to save some dead trees and limbs to recycle nutrients and feed the soil and forest ecosystem.

That said, Gibbs jumps to the mistaken conclusion that biomass can never be worthwhile. In fact, there is a consensus among the scientists Gibbs cites that burning numerous types of biomass can reduce net carbon emissions. These types of biomass include:

• Sustainably harvested forest residues, such as the limbs left after logging, which would emit a significant fraction of their carbon upon decay;

• Energy crops that don't crowd out food production, such as switch-grass planted on marginal lands;

• Farm wastes, such as manure and crop residues; and

• Municipal and industrial wastes

Leading scientists agree that burning these types of biomass would not add to atmospheric carbon levels and thus would not contribute to global warming. In fact, because these low-carbon biomass sources often displace high-carbon coal, they can reduce carbon emissions significantly.

In addition to starting with the most beneficial biomass resources, we also need to ensure that we harvest woody biomass sustainably without degrading forests. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is pressing Congress to ensure that federal policies protect critical lands, such as wilderness areas, and establish standards that prevent degradation of wildlife habitat, enhance soil productivity, and protect biodiversity when biomass is harvested.

To try to make his case, Gibbs cherry-picks the data. He cites the worst case scenario in which biomass use and agricultural expansion destroy forests. Many of the same scientists who came up with that scenario -- which they concede is extreme -- also posit another scenario in which biomass use could jump 800 percent from today's levels, make a major contribution to curbing global warming, and increase forested land at the same time. With the right policies, we can, in fact, develop beneficial biomass resources and protect forests.

Finally, besides his miscalculation of biomass' value, Gibbs erroneously dismisses the contribution that solar, wind and other renewables could make today to reliably power the grid and cut global warming pollution. Numerous assessments by the Department of Energy (DOE) and other credible agencies and organizations demonstrate that renewable energy sources are ready today to make a significant contribution. A 2008 DOE study, for example, found that wind power could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030 with no adverse impact on reliability or the need for storage. In addition, UCS's 2009 Climate 2030 Blueprint found that if the United States adopted a suite of smart climate, energy-efficiency and renewable-energy policies, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass could provide 40 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030 and reduce electric bills across the country.

Article by Ben Larson - Courtesy of Huffingtonpost.com http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-larson/if-done-right-biomass-ene_b_401023.html

Copenhagen Forecast: Snow, Protest, Apocalypse; Can Obama Clear the Air?

The Final Stretch

Citizens around the world have called for a fair deal at climate talks, and in Copenhagen, they plan to make that call louder tomorrow with civil disobedience. The world's leading mayors have also called for a real deal, as have some of America's leading businesses. But where it counts, in the negotiating rooms, something is, sorry to say, still rotten in the state of Denmark.

No one said bringing all the world's countries together to hash out a deal -- or really, the foundations of a deal -- would be easy. But after nearly half a decade of facing the inconvenient truths of climate change, and its economic, political, and moral imperatives, does it have to be this hard?

Though we may not be fighting the apocalypse, as Greenpeace would have it, in Copenhagen we're staking the boldest claim yet for the future of the earth. We've messed it up -- we know that -- and we have the power to correct our mistake. So of course it has to be hard, because it has to be good.

Where We Are Now

To get things on track for the last day before heads of state take over, Denmark's Environment Minister, Connie Hedegaard, has formed five small groups to sort out the five "crunch issues" at the summit:

Improving the targets to be set by developed countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are causing climate change

* The mitigation actions of developing countries;*

* The long-term finance to be provided by rich nations so that poor countries can cope with climate change effects;

* How to deal with emissions caused by the aviation and shipping industries; and

* Special circumstances of some countries (such as Russia) in relation to mitigation.

The Divisions

The end times may not be upon us, but the developed and developing countries certainly look more divided than before. The African nations, which suspended talks on Monday, want a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a regime the US and most other developed countries reject outright.

Rich countries are also reluctant to dole out the long-term aid poor nations need to survive and fight climate change. The US is especially adamant that it won't give China any money -- or reparations, as the US negotiator idiotically called them -- because China doesn't need the US's money. China's negotiator seemed to agree with that at first, but then Beijing backtracked, saying China deserves money too.

What China says it doesn't deserve is to have its emissions cuts overseen by any carbon police, a demand the US insists is an absolute must for any climate deal. Meanwhile, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) says that an upper limit of two degrees Celsius of warming isn't good enough as it would result in a loss of coastlines and sometime entire islands; they want a 1.5-degree cap, but not all developing nations do. And now, thanks to a backroom deal between France and Ethiopia, even the African nations are showing rifts.

The Agreements (Sort Of)

There have been some promising steps forward, apart from the promises made just before the summit by China, India, Brazil and others. Yesterday a number of potential financing options were put on the table. Today Holland committed to the 40 percent cuts called for by Kyoto.

Meanwhile, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation scheme, known as REDD, got a dollar amount affixed to it today: $22 billion to $37 billion to jump start the plan, which would seek to halt deforestation in developing nations completely by 2030. (Currently, the only money being offered for a climate deal is a meager $30 billion in so-called "kick-start" financing over three years; some groups also call it "kick-end" financing because it doesn't go beyond that date).

But ultimately, these steps forward are signs of good will and good faith, not agreements that are likely to make it into a final agreement.

Endgame - Or New Game?

With expectations as low as ever, and anger and concern rising, Barack Obama may be well positioned to attempt a modest Hail Mary pass when he flies in on Thursday. The timing of the White House's report today about green jobs seems fortuitous; what better way to prime the American public for a ramping up of the US's carbon cutting commitments? But chances are, his throw won't be strong enough, and if it is, he may not have any teammates to catch it.

At the summit where world leaders were supposed to ink a binding deal on climate change, environmental groups, activists and journalists are already preparing for a greenwash, and getting ready to pack their bags for the next possible climate agreement end zone in Mexico.

Before they get there though, they may need to help remake the game completely.

Article by Alex Pasternack Courtesy of Treehugger.com http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/copenhagen-forecast-snow-protest-apocalypse-can-obama-clear-the-air.php

What do the Arctic, a Thermostat and COP15 Have in Common?

The year was 1972 and my father Philippe Cousteau Sr. was filming another episode of the famed series The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau. This particular installment, A Smile of the Walrus, chronicled the story of a changing Arctic ecosystem and the struggle of the various creatures such as the walrus to adapt. But 37 years ago, the changes being investigated by my father and grandfather were of a very different sort than those we struggle with today. At that time, the Inuit people were trading their dogsleds for snowmobiles, and their spears for rifles. The questions being asked were about the sustainability of a species in the face of man's technological advancements. Today, those advancements have given way to a whole new arsenal of problems that threaten not only the Arctic and its indigenous species, but the entire planet and humanity as we know it.

The Arctic is among the least understood places on the planet; however, we do know that its landscape is changing and evolving as quickly as cell phones and the Internet. You have probably heard or said at some point, "I could not live without my cell phone." Well, the world cannot live without the Arctic; it affects every living thing on Earth and acts as a virtual thermostat, reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet.

Now imagine, for a moment, if you lost control of the thermostat in your home or office; you would be pretty uncomfortable, right? Thankfully, most of us are fortunate enough to resolve this with a phone call or two (or three, depending on your maintenance guy). The Arctic isn't so lucky. It's warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, causing seasonal ice to melt at an astounding rate. According to NASA, since 1979, the average decline of sea ice per decade is almost 10 percent.
You're probably asking, "what does this have to do with me?" Well, if we continue pumping carbon pollution into the atmosphere, which is causing the sea ice to melt at the current rate, here are just some of the consequences (in the Arctic and in your backyard):

• Further decline of public health. According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; from 1980-1994, the prevalence of asthma increased 75% in the US population, amongst children under the age of five it increased more than 160%. Contributing factors include poor air quality and pollution. In fact, the fastest growing school clubs in Atlanta are asthma clubs. I have met mothers who struggle to keep their jobs because of their children's constant visits to the hospital, many of whom are uninsured; we all know how costly this is to our healthcare system. In my opinion, this is unacceptable and unnecessary collateral damage of our environmental neglect;
• Droughts and dwindling water supply. As the ice melts, the resulting salinity and temperature changes in the ocean will continue to cause shifting ocean currents and thus more severe and frequent climate disruptions from storms to drought, the kinds of droughts that are causing people to fight over dwindling water supplies from Darfur to the Middle East;
• Loss of jobs and food sources. The carbon output that melts the ice in the Arctic also causes ocean acidification, which results from the ocean absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (the same carbon dioxide that is the primary cause of global warming, hence the nickname 'the other carbon problem'). Often referred to as osteoporosis of the ocean, higher acidity prevents shell building creatures such as lobster, oyster, crab, shrimp, and coral from extracting the calcium carbonate from the water that they need to build their shells and are thus unable to survive. This will cause ocean eco-systems to collapse with disastrous consequences for not only the multi trillion dollar fisheries business, but also depriving the more than one billion people who rely on seafood as their only source of protein.

The Arctic is one of many issues that elected officials and policymakers are currently discussing in Copenhagen, Denmark, as part of the United Nations' (UN's) climate change summit. From December 7-18, representatives from countries around the world are debating ways to build a cleaner and more livable world than the one we live in today.

Whether you're on the ground in Copenhagen or not, you can affect the outcome by signing the UN Climate Petition and becoming a citizen of Hopenhagen (http://www.hopenhagen.org/home/showform). Hopenhagen is a movement, a moment and a chance at a new beginning. The hope that we can build a better future for our planet and a more sustainable way of life. It is the hope that we can create a global community that will lead our leaders into making the right decisions and fulfill the promise that by solving our environmental crisis, we can solve our economic crisis at the same time.

It's time that we stop debating the science as Earth grows sicker and our welfare is put into jeopardy. I'm all for debate and discussion, but we can do this and implement solutions simultaneously. Hopenhagen is a quick and easy first step but petitions alone won't solve this crisis, we must also individually and collectively consider the consequences of our behavior; from driving gas-guzzling SUV's that emit far more CO₂than they should, to demanding that our elected officials institute the effective legislation that we need to combat this crisis.

My grandfather opened the first chapter of his story, A Smile of the Walrus, with an old nursery rhyme, "Did you ever see a walrus smile all these many years? Why yes I've seen a walrus smile, but it was hidden by his tears." As we open this new chapter in the battle against climate change, I fear that if we do not take action, then the smiles of our children, like the walrus, will be hidden by the tears they shed as they pay the consequences of our inaction, our apathy and our greed.

Article by Philippe Cousteau. Courtesy of HuffingtonPost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philippe-cousteau/what-do-the-arctic-a-ther_b_389440.html

Follow Philippe Cousteau on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@pcousteau

If Global Warming Is Real, Why Is It So Cold?

North America had below-average temperatures in 2009. So what gives?

4 real-time signs of global warming.

The World Meteorological Organization made headlines today when it released data showing that the decade winding down this month is the hottest ever recorded, and 2009 is among the 10 hottest years ever recorded.

Then why is it so cold here? North America has, in fact, been cooler than average in 2009, according to the U.N. agency. So why is global warming still real, still happening and still worth doing something about?

1. It's Hot Everywhere Else

That's the way the climate works, and it's why researchers study long term trends more than regional blips. Southern Asia and Central Africa are likely to set new records for the hottest years on record. A little cooler than average in one spot on the globe, even one the size of North America, doesn't offset higher than average temperatures most everywhere else, and dramatically high temperatures across just as vast regions. When you average it all out, taking into account temperatures over land and sea, 2009 will rank as the fifth-warmest year recorded since 1850, according to the WMO projection. It's also among the hottest years in the last few thousand years, if you compare the data to multiple lines of evidence from ice cores, tree rings and layers of sediment, each of which offers unique but consistent clues about the past climate and the dramatic uptick we've experienced in recent decades.

Europe, the Middle East and Asia were warmer than normal, and parts of China (in addition to large swaths of Southeast Asia) set new records; overall, China experienced its third-warmest year since 1951. Heat waves sweltered in the U.K. and Italy, France, Belgium and Germany in Europe; China and India in Asia (150 died from the heat during the May heat wave in India); and Australia suffered through three heat waves (including one that spawned massive bushfires that killed more nearly 175 people) during what is likely to be the third-warmest year ever recorded there.

There's no great reason to expect that North America won't have its turn with the exceptional heat another year, as the chart to the right shows.

2. Wherever It's Not Wet, It's Dry

Droughts affected large portions of the world's population, directly and indirectly, in 2009, continuing a trend that scientists believe is exacerbated by global warming. While any one weather event can't be tied directly to global warming, scientists look for patterns and in many cases see the same results on the ground that have been predicted by computer models.

In 2009, China suffered its worst drought in five decades, and one of the weakest monsoons in the last 35 years in India left 40% of the nation suffering from drought. East African drought led to massive food shortages, central Argentina experienced severe drop damage from drought, and Australian farmers continue to struggle against a persistent drought.

North America, while wetter than many recent years (by October, areas experiencing drought were measured at their second-lowest extent this decade), the West continues to be affected by a long-term drought that threatens water supplies, farms and threatens to spawn more devastating wildfires.

3. Wherever It's Not Dry, It's Wet

The effects of global warming can be hard to describe, because you might find yourself saying at once that severe droughts will result, and that severe storms and flooding will, too. But that's the way it works: Some regions will be chronically starved of moisture, while others will see stronger deluges. Many storms will be supercharged from the extra heat in the atmosphere, so they release more water faster, causing flooding.

Case in point: Southeastern Spain had nearly a foot of rain fall over two days. In a normal year for that same spot, no more than 18 inches fall. That was the state of affairs throughout much of the Mediterranean and northern Africa this fall. Turkey experienced more rainfall in 2009 than it had in 80 years. Back in spring and summer, similar conditions were visited upon parts of Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. Rainfall of more than 20 inches broke monthly rainfall records in many locations. North America was not spared, either, with the northern plains of the U.S. affected by flooding in March, and the U.S. as a whole recording its wettest October in 115 years.

The poorer the country, the more damage this severe weather does. In India, severe flooding followed the weak monsoon season, killing more than 250 people. In western Africa, September flooding more than 1 million people were affected.

4. That Pesky Ice Cap

Arctic sea ice melted to the third-lowest extent ever recorded in September 2009, at the height of the annual melt. It would have easily set a record, except 2007 and 2008 had such dramatic melting that 2009 didn't quite set a new record.

The melting of Arctic sea ice is one of the clearest signals of global warming, and a leading indicator of what is to come. The melting is also an example -- one of many -- of a positive feedback loop that scientists expect will accelerate global warming: As sea ice melts, the darker water that is exposed absorbs more of the sun's energy, which leads to warmer waters and more melting ice.

The Arctic is referred to as the "Earth's air conditioner," moderating climate worldwide. More directly, Arctic species like polar bears, seals and walruses are becoming threatened as their habitat shrinks.

Article courtesy of The Daily Green. To see article in its entirety please visit: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/global-warming-heat-waves-47082601?src=rss