Every year, Gustavus Adolphus College in tiny St. Peter, MN holds a Nobel Conference, authorized by the Nobel Foundation of Stolkhom, Sweden. The conference brings together renowned experts to discuss timely issues, like aging or globalization. This year, it was “Heating Up: The Energy Debate.”

I attended the two-day event, which delivered in its round-up of impressive energy and global warming experts: Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Stephen Chu, biofuels expert Dr. Lee Rybeck Lynd, peak oil expert Ken Deffeyes, economist Paul L. Joskow, polar explorer Will Steger, hydrogen expert Joan M. Ogden, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While at times the science got a bit thick, the message from all of the lecturers was clear: Global warming is urgent, we need to do something NOW, and many different solutions will get us there.

I was most interested to hear from Paul L. Joskow, an MIT economist who discussed the best methods for regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Many politicians favor a cap-and-trade policy, in which a limit on CO2 is determined and then tradable/sellable permits to pollute are issued to utilities and industry. Economists, on the other hand, generally prefer a carbon tax that simply taxes CO2 at a certain rate.

Although an economist himself, Joskow argued that a cap-and-trade policy is the best way to create a market for CO2 and drive down emissions. First of all, a cap-and-trade policy is politically feasible, and making sure it actually has a chance of passing Congress in our lifetime is the most important thing to slowing global warming. Secondly, a cap-and-trade plan links the U.S. with other nations (and other states) that have already started down this path, thus creating a global solution to a global problem.

While economists favor a carbon tax that the feds could ideally use to cut taxes in another area, like income, Joskow said “perfect the enemy of good.” Sure, in a perfect world we would tax bad stuff and never tax good stuff (like working). But the urgency of global warming calls for a good system that is feasible now and gets us in sync with the rest of the planet. And the best system for that is a cap-and-trade policy.

Joan M. Ogden lectured on a hydrogen economy, although her fellow panel discussion presenters were skeptical of using hydrogen as a fuel source, at least in terms of it being ready fast enough to fight global warming. Although no option should be taken off the table, hydrogen could play a more important role in bettering existing technologies (like ethanol production) rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure.

Dr. James Hansen – you may remember him from his accusations that NASA officials edited his global warming reports – said that if someone is seriously concerned about climate change, any elected official they vote for should agree on three principals:

1) A moratorium on traditional coal-fired power plants (until we can sequester the CO2, building more plants moves us backwards)

2) Policies that encourage more renewable energy

3) Incentives for energy efficiency.

With the clean technology here but the leadership lacking, the issue of urgency was paramount throughout the lectures. In fact, I thought the statistics and scenarios put forth more dire than those I normally read in the media. More than one expert prefaced a recommendation with something like, ‘A year ago I would’ve been laughed out of the room for saying this, but now I can say that what we need to do is…’ The extensive media attention on global warming, along with some serious dialogue and action by the business sector and politicians, have made it “safer” to talk about the true consequences and costs of global warming without immediately being labeled a nutcase.

For example, MIT economist Paul L. Joskow said that any sort of carbon regulation is going to raise our utility bills “and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.” With a cap-and-trade policy that sets CO2 at $50 per ton (a price he thinks is likely), it could drive up utility bills 40-50%. But this would not happen over night: Any measure passed by Congress would give utilities several years to implement efficiency programs to soften the landing. But the message was still clear: This isn’t going to be easy, but we can do it.

Polar explorer Will Steger, who has been traveling and studying the arctic and Antarctic regions for 40 years, gave an eyewitness account of global warming’s effects at the poles (in May I interviewed him about his most recent trip). I’d heard his talk several times, but there was a big difference this time: He showed a slide of polar bear and then said in his quiet-but no-BS –sort-of-way, “This is our friend the polar bear. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for them – they will go extinct. I couldn’t say that 18 months ago to people, but now I am.”

Despite the wake up calls – no use in sugarcoating at this point – it was still uplifting to know that some of the planet’s smartest people are working on this and elected leaders are slowly getting the message.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to get to work. For starters, check out Will Steger’s “Template for Action,” Lighter Footstep’s “10 First Steps,” or the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “How You Can be Involved.”

Photo courtesy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program office.

I’m a Minnesota Public Radio member, and so I choose to receive a magazine called Minnesota Monthly as my thank you gift (I know I could save them $15 more a year but it’s a really good magazine). This month, I was at first pleased to find an article on global warming, then disturbed to learn about the rapid changes going on in Lake Superior because of the steadily increasing temperatures.

For starters, the lake’s rapidly warming water temperature has baffled scientists. Although they knew it has been slowly heating up, "it went bananas" beginning 30 years ago: about 75 percent of the 6-degree increase in water temperature has happened since 1980.

Scientists at the Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, MN thought they had made a mistake: How could the lake be warming up twice as fast as the climate around it?

Much like the effect scientists are seeing in the Arctic, the lack of ice coverage has caused the lake to warm up faster than expected. The ice normally reflects sunlight back into space and keeps the water cooler underneath. But as warmer temperatures creep in and the average annual ice cover shrinks, the darker open water absorbs the heat and cranks up the lake temperature even faster. The vicious cycle continues, as warmer water temperatures mean less ice, which means more open water…

The spring turnover is also happening much earlier than normal. The turnover happens when the icy surface water warms up and mixes with the rest of the lake, creating a layer of warm water on top. This has been happening 10-14 days earlier than it was 25 years ago.

Last summer, Lake Superior’s temperature broke a record when it was measured at 75 degrees. Typically, it barely got above 60.

So what does this mean for the rest of us? In the states surrounding Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes, rapidly increasing temperatures mean more invasive plant and animal species from the warmer climes. Lake Michigan has already seen sea lampreys almost wipe out its lake trout. Changes to wildlife would also hurt tourism, causing a major economic blow.

It also means big disruptions to the region’s commerce. Lake Superior is at its lowest water level in 81 years, and while scientists say global warming may not be the sole cause of that decline, it is a factor. Cargo ships — some that carry wind turbine parts over from Europe, ironically — must haul lighter loads so they don’t get stranded in port. That means less efficient shipping and transportation of goods around the world.

While landscapes and habitat have changed over the centuries, the swiftness of this latest change has unsettled scientists. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to prepare to adapt to the inevitable changes have begun and take meaningful action to ensure that it doesn’t get worse.

Minnesota Monthly

There have been some major wake-up calls in the fight against global warming, starting with the United Nations scolding the U.S. for not doing enough to mitigate its contributions to the problem.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press that it’s "very clear" the U.S. is not on the right track, despite the Bush administration’s recent openness to even discussing the problem and the series of meetings President Bush has scheduled with world leaders.

More U.N. meetings begin today to prepare for the Bali talks in December that will include negotiations of how to proceed after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On Thursday, President Bush convenes his own two-day meeting with 15 big-emitter nations. Some worry that his smaller, more limited round of negotiations will undercut the Bali discussions.

Our friends across the pond didn’t hear any good news on the climate change front, either. A representative of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the BBC that it’s unlikely the European Union will achieve their goal of keeping global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Martin Parry is the co-chair of the IPCC, the group that has brought us three reports so far this year on the science, impacts, and solutions of climate change. He told the BBC that the chances of humans keeping the average global temperature increase less than 2 degrees C is "quite little."

He went on to explain that the increase of more than 2 degrees will result in major consequences. Water shortages around the globe may occur (especially in areas with melting glaciers that depend on the freeze and thaw for water), heat waves may increase, and crops may be threatened.

Parry believes it is still possible to contain the rise in temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius, although, as always, our actions have to be swift. In the meantime, world leaders must discuss "very seriously" plans for significant adaptation measures.

Associated Press, via Kansas City Star
BBC
Terra Daily

Here’s an example of a global warming consequence that wasn’t exactly on my radar, and some strange news from our neighbors to the north.

The Canadian navy has traditionally had a good relationship with the garbage on board its ships: the cold Arctic temperatures have kept the mess frozen, allowing refuse and olfactory senses to live harmoniously.

Then came global warming. The increased temperatures have caused quite the stink on Canadian naval ships, so much so that the navy is relaxing regulations and allowing ships to dump the garbage and even raw sewage at sea. A portion of an internal navy memo was reprinted by The Canadian Press:

The changes ‘help alleviate our COs (commanding officers’) concerns (with regard to) accumulated food remnants stored in garbage bags on decks during ever-increasing global warming summers…These food remnants may decay or putrefy and generate an occupational health and safety issue on board ships (that) our COs can ill afford while striving to enforce Canadian sovereignty in our internal Arctic waters."

The orders – part of the more relaxed provisions in the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act – allow for dumping if there are "operational" or safety reasons, or if capacity is exceeded.

These provisions, and the increased number of ships being sent north on sovereignty patrols, have many people arguing that taking the smelly garbage to a port for unloading is the worth the inconvenience, especially when the alternative is dumping it at sea.

However, navy officials say dumping would be worst-case-scenario, and that navy ships are still much more restrictive in their environmental stewardship than the law requires them to be.

The Canadian Press

Last week China reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, particularly hydropower. The Asian nation plans to triple its hydropower production to 300,000 megawatts by 2020.

Chinese officials also asked the world to cut them some slack in their efforts to cut global warming pollution.

China’s contribution to global warming has been relatively small compared to the more developed Western nations, they argue, and they shouldn’t be held overly accountable. According to Chen Deming of the National Development and Reform Commission, "I hope the international media will give us some development rights, some development space and not overly blame us."

Wind power and biofuels, in addition to big hydro, will help China reach its goal of producing 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. But it’s the hydropower expansion that is raising the eyebrows of some who are concerned about the large dams’ environmental impact.

Chen Deming argued that cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that contribute to global warming is more important than any negative environmental impact of huge hydropower. Other groups like Greenpeace argue that the damage caused by large dams – like the Three Gorges on the Yangtze River — could have more consequences than conventional power plants because of the massive amount of CO2 released when trees and plant life are destroyed.

AFX News, via Forbes
Associated Press, via DelawareOnline

Image: China’s Three Gorges Dam

There was a questionable bit of progress this past Friday at the Vienna Climate Change Talks, where negotiators agreed on loose targets for cutting the emissions that cause global warming.

The 158 nations represented agreed that industrialized countries should cut global warming emissions by 25-40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. But nations like Canada, Japan, and Russia delayed the talks, arguing instead for a more "open approach" rather than setting hard and fast targets. In the end, negotiators agreed that the targets would be non-binding and that each nation’s efforts will be "determined by national circumstances and evolve over time."

Some participants saw it as a good sign that developed nations are more serious about cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while others warn that there’s a lot further to go. Red Constantino with Greenpeace International told the Associated Press that CO2 emissions need to be cut at least 30 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the disease, water shortage, and misery certain to afflict the developing world in a warmer climate.

Smaller nations pressured the developed ones for even deeper emissions cuts, to no avail. The UN’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, pointed out that if the world doesn’t act more quickly to slow climate change soon, these smaller nations will not be around to represent.

The United Nations-backed Vienna conference served as a starting point to guide the high-level international talks that begin in December in Bali. World leaders must begin crafting a new global agreement to put in place after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

While the U.S. did not ratify Kyoto, President Bush has committed to a series of climate change meetings. The first will be at the end of September in Washington, DC. Fifteen countries, the European Union, and United Nations officials are attending.

Associated Press, via CNN
Washington Post

It’s been a busy week for international climate change negotiations. A meeting of the United Nations and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) have some watchers feeling cautiously optimistic of future global agreements, while others are less than impressed with the semantics.

The Vienna Climate Change talks saw more than a thousand people from government, industry, and research gather in the Austrian capital to discuss ways to fight global warming. This United Nations-backed meeting is preparation for the more high-level talks in New York in September, and Bali in December. The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012, and nations are scrambling to determine effective next steps that will address climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a global carbon market. Many hope for and expect more participation from nations glaringly absent from the first phase of implementation, like the United States and China.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he expects the Vienna meetings to give a good indication as to whether governments are ready to take serious action on cutting emissions.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged governments to figure out the next phase of Kyoto three years before the first phase expires so there is time to ratify the law and be ready to go in 2012.

Austrian Environment Minister Josef Proell said in his opening remarks:

"Climate change is a huge challenge that can only be tackled at a global level and in an integrated manner… We do not have much time to create adequate framework conditions. Each year without mitigation measures is a year which drives the human and financial cost of adaptation steeply upwards."

On the other side of the world in Singapore, APEC has drafted a declaration agreeing to cut "energy intensity" by 25 percent by 2030 and plant nearly 50,000 million acres of trees. Energy intensity measures an economy’s energy efficiency – but clean energy supporters say this particular wording avoids any sort of serious commitment to cutting emissions. A spokeswoman for Greenpeace told Bloomberg news: "The APEC declaration is clearly ‘Made in the U.S.’ and covered with a thick coating of Australian coal dust."

Next month at a meeting in Sydney, Australia, APEC nations will agree to fund clean technologies and fight illegal logging. China has said it will support the Sydney declaration on climate change, and the U.S. is expected to attend the meetings.

Bloomberg
Independent Online

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that the Bush Administration broke federal law when it failed to produce two required global warming reports on time.

The ruling was based on a 1990 law - the Research Plan and National Assessment required by the Global Change Research Act - directing the President to regularly issue two global warming plans: one that guides research and another explaining global warming’s possible impacts on the U.S.

The research plan was last issued in 2003, and is supposed to be updated every three years. The judge set a March 1 deadline for it. The report on global warming’s impacts is supposed to be issues every four years; the last one was updated by the Clinton Administration in 2000. A May 31 deadline has been set for the newest version, which will explain global warming’s projected impacts on the U.S. economy, public health, and the environment.

The Bush Administration tried to argue that it could decide for itself when and how the reports are released. They claimed they were already following the law by working on 21 different global warming reports, and were just starting to prepare a new research plan on the subject. But the judge wrote in the ruling: "The defendants are wrong. Congress has conferred no discretion upon the defendants as to when they will issue revised Research Plans and National Assessments."

The plaintiffs in the case were the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth. The Bush Administration is reviewing the lawsuit and so far hasn’t commented on the ruling.

Center for Biological Diversity
International Herald Tribune
Wired Science

Australian farmers have teamed up with environmentalists to create the Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change, a group that wants to cut emissions up to 60 percent by 2050.

Although they may not agree on all environmental issues, climate change is problem that they know requires immediate action and can be slowed. Farming groups like the South Australian Farmers Federation and Agforce are on the front lines of having to adapt quickly to a changing climate and risking their livelihood in the process. Some farmers also feel that they haven’t received the recognition they deserve for fighting global warming. The Alliance acknowledged as much in a statement:

Australia is tracking close to its Kyoto target due largely to the efforts of Australian farmers reducing emissions, particularly from practices such as minimum tillage and ceasing broad-scale land-clearing, while emissions from most other sectors have continued to increase.

The group seems to be rather light on specific policy initiatives or technology recommendations, while their ultimate aims include creating “effective and sustainable economic drives” from harvesting renewable energy, providing social and physical infrastructure and services to rural Australia, and providing information and tools to rural Australians to help them prepare for some of the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

Here in the U.S., farmers have joined with clean energy organizations and traditional environmentalists to push a common agenda as well. While they may not agree when it comes to party politics, issues like clean, efficient, and homegrown energy have clearly crossed party lines in many areas.

Organizations like the 25x’25 initiative were started by farmers with a vision of 25 percent renewable energy by 2025, and farmers unions are working at all levels of government to push for policies that support local, renewable power. Wind energy and biofuels are common grounds for collaboration, as so much farm land is also in some of the most wind-rich areas of the country, and as the potential for biofuels that go (and grow) beyond corn continue to hold great promise as a clean, reliable source of fuel.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Conservation Foundation

Late last week in a vote of 65-27, the Senate passed an energy bill that made progress in some areas but was stripped down in others.

The crown jewel was certainly a near-40 percent increase in fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles by 2020. For the first time, SUVs, vans, and small trucks fall under the same regulations as passenger cars. Each vehicle group must achieve a 10 miles per gallon (mpg) increase in fuel efficiency by the target year, with an overall average requirement for the manufacturer’s fleet increasing from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. The current requirement has not changed in nearly 20 years.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) fought the standards and wanted to instead pass a more auto industry-friendly fuel requirement. But he admitted that one reason for his effort’s failure was the growing concern over global warming. From the Associated Press:

“‘The public wants action, rightfully so, on global warming,’ Levin said in an interview. And he added, the auto industry is ‘a juicy target.’”

Although an improvement in fuel efficiency is a long-overdue step forward, some perspective is required. Watthead over at Cleanergy.org points out the 35 mpg standards by 2020 is about where China and Japan are today, where the European Union was five years ago, and where states that adopt California’s tailpipe standards will be in five years.

Other achievements in the energy bill include:

• A 36 billion gallon by 2022 renewable fuels standard, including the specification that at least 60 percent of the requirement must be met by “next generation” biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is not made from corn but rather other plant materials like switchgrass.

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards, as well as a requirement that the federal government accelerate the use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

• The development of an action plan (but not a requirement) to cut oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day by 2017. That’s roughly the same as the total current imports of oil from the Middle East. The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for the plan.

Here’s what didn’t make it in the energy bill:

• No support for coal-to-liquids synthetic fuel production and no support for expanded coal, nuclear, or oil use. So although some key pieces of progressive clean energy legislation were left out, at least we’re (so far) not expanding more of our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

• No package that would have extended production tax credits and other financial incentives and offsets for renewable energy. The $32 billion package, previously approved 15-5 by the Senate Finance Committee, also included a repeal of tax credits for major gas and oil companies' domestic manufacturing activities.

• No national renewable energy standard that would have required 15 percent of our energy to come from clean, renewable sources by 2020.

The Senate energy bill now awaits action in the House. The House Ways and Means Committee passed a tax provision last week that includes support for wind and biodiesel. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Representative Edward Mackey (D-MA) have both agreed that gasoline use must be more efficient and plan to work to ensure that the House’s action mirrors the Senate’s.

Associated Press, via CIO Today
BioCycle
Cleanergy.org
Sioux Falls Argus Leader