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

States continue to take the lead in cutting global warming pollution and more may soon follow, spurred by a federal judge’s ruling last week that Vermont can set stricter vehicle emissions standards — stricter than what the federal government requires.

Furthermore, the widespread state action on auto emissions could persuade the government to enact nationwide fuel efficiency laws, rather than leave a patchwork of state regulations for automakers to work around.

The Christian Science Monitor took a look at what’s happening across the U.S., and predicted some ramifications of the Vermont case:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be prompted to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act. This would allow California, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing emission requirements for cars sold in their states.

• Six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – may proceed with their own emissions requirements. All together, the 18 states that have vehicle emission laws or that are exploring them make up about half the U.S. auto market.

• Congress may have to reconsider new fuel-efficiency standards it’s currently weighing (which are not as demanding as Vermont’s). Or they could mandate a tougher federal requirement (more of a long-shot, I’d say).

• Federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry in California and Rhode Island could dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant.

Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense were party to the Vermont lawsuit, and are optimistic that the judge’s ruling will spur other states to action. The auto industry promised to stricter regulations.

The 12 states with emissions laws already on the books could cut up to 100 million tons each year. Overall U.S. emissions from cars and light trucks total about 1.5 billion tons per year.

Christian Science Monitor
Cybercast News Service

Clean energy was the hot topic at the National Press Club this week, where public leaders gathered to discuss "Securing a Clean Energy Future." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was there, as was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) and Minnesota Governor and president of the National Governors Association (NGA), Tim Pawlenty (R).

Pawlenty explained that cutting global warming emissions was a top priority for the group of governors, with the hope that it would spur federal action. From the Associated Press: "We have a federal government that doesn’t seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like" on these issues, Pawlenty said… If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy.”

So far, 12 states have plans to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

The NGA announced an 8-governor task force to advance clean energy development in the states, and the Energy Department promised $610,000 to support its work.

But we may want to dig a little deeper into Pawlenthy’s enthusiasm. He supports the construction of the dirty Big Stone II coal plant, proposed for two miles over the Minnesota border in South Dakota. Minnesota is slated to receive a large portion of its electricity, and also has a say in the construction of the plant.

Pawlenty said that he disagrees with the statement "the future involved no coal"; he wants "clean" coal technology and carbon sequestration. Okay, but the controversial Big Stone II plant has neither of those, and some worry that its construction will make it harder for Minnesota to reach its renewable energy standard of 25 percent renewables by 2020. Pawlenty conceded that there would be an "awkward five-year transition in between and in the meantime the world goes on." Except that the coal plants hang around for 50 years.

Associated Press
Union of Concerned Scientists

Despite Americans’ rightful wariness of nuclear power, other nations are embracing it: France gets 75 percent of its electricity from it, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called nuclear power “inevitable,” and Finland is building a new reactor.

In fact, the U.S.’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expecting 12 new applications to build nuclear power reactors at seven different sites, plus another 15 are in the pipeline for next year. These are the first full applications to build new nuclear plants in 30 years…what gives?

Oil located in unstable regions of the world and climate change concerns are some oft-sited reasons for the increased interest in nukes. Why try to work with unstable, corrupt governments that have oil when you can mine uranium in places where you’d vacation, like Australia and Canada? Why deal with CO2-spewing coal plants when you can take a deep breath next to a nuclear plant? Except for that huge hairy problem of the dangerous waste hanging around for thousands of years…

Additionally, the NRC has implemented some new processes to apparently make the approval process easier:

• Rather than require utilities to get two different licenses – one to build the plant and the other to start it up – utilities can apply for one license that covers both areas.
• Firms can get nuclear reactor designs cleared in advance. So if a reactor gets the green light, only the modifications unique to the site have to be reviewed.
• A utility can ask the NRC to approve a location before it even applies for a combined license.
• The NRC is hiring about 200 new staff every year and has set up a field office in George to deal with the particularly high number of southern utilities interested in nuclear plants.

Despite these changes, the NRC says it will still take over three years to review an application and conduct hearings.

The problem of what to do with nuclear waste is and should continue to be a serious and significant barrier, and Americans are still divided in their opinion of nuclear energy; in a March poll, about half of respondents favored expanding it. But a September 6th story in the Economist points out that nuclear may start to look more appealing as coal plants face a “regulatory risk” due to assumed future carbon regulation. Just as some energy watchers talk about a “coal rush” (the rush to build coal plants before carbon regulation takes effect), could we see a “nuclear rush” after federal carbon regulation is implemented?

The Economist
Wikipedia

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

Vestas, one of the world’s leading wind energy companies, is leaving Australia, calling the nation’s wind energy market "unviable."

Vestas Australia Wind Technology will close its 2 1/2 year-old turbine blade factory in Portland, Victoria at the end of this year. Consequently, 130 jobs will be lost. The Danish company’s Asia-Pacific senior vice president, Jorn Hammer, was quite forthcoming with his criticism of the Australian government:

"It’s not viable for us to make further investments in the Australian market…we don’t see the market as big enough in Australia to justify the expense…When we committed to build the factory we believed there was support for the wind industry in Australia, and that has not come through to the extent we anticipated.

We have the view that if the government steps up to the plate and puts the necessary security for a long-term market in place we’ll have another look at the market, but I guess we’ll be a little more careful next time…(Not) just believing in what they’ve been telling us, we need to see some hard evidence to justify investment."

Australian officials were upset with the divestment, and some pointed fingers at the Howard administration, which has been criticized in the past for moving too slowly to address climate change and implement solutions.

Vestas apparently made the ultimate decision to end its manufacturing business in Australia when it was told the government would not extend its mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) of 2 percent renewables. A spokeswoman for federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane told the Western Australian that Vestas knew the MRET wouldn’t be renewed even before they decided to build in Portland in the first place.

Last year, Vestas also shut down a wind turbine factory in Tasmania, laying off 65 employees.

Crossposted on Maria Energia.

Sunrise Powerlink is a transmission project proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). According to a SDG&E map, the 150-mile line would wind its way from Imperial County east of San Diego, through Anza-Borrego State Park, and down into San Diego. It would be the first new transmission line connecting the San Diego area to the state’s energy grid in 25 years. SDG&E says the line is needed to transport wind and solar energy from projects in Imperial County to San Diego, and to meet California’s requirements to get 20 percent of its energy from renewables by 2010.

Simple, right? Hardly. This project has been hugely controversial. SDG&E’s cost savings numbers have been largely inflated, opponents argue that renewable energy projects in Imperial County don’t depend on the construction of Sunrise Powerlink, and SDG&D has admitted that it doesn’t need the line to meet the state’s renewable energy requirement as previously stated. Rather, opponents argue, the line will be a huge windfall for SDG&E and other contractors while hanging the ratepayers out to dry in the process. A recent article from the Voice of San Diego noted:

"The power line’s $447 million annual savings was cut to $142 million a year after erroneous calculations were uncovered. A solar energy project whose fate was once tied to the line has failed to demonstrate that it works on a commercial scale. SDG&E has equivocated about how much renewable energy can be found in Imperial County, where the line will begin. The company has waffled about whether the line is necessary to spark renewable energy development in Imperial County."

But SDG&E points to government reports that say San Diego will need more transmission capacity to meet a growing population. A coalition called Californians for Clean and Reliable Energy (Cal-CARE) has organized to support the project. It’s made up of a long list of businesses, unions, and government officials – but no green groups that I could find. Cal-CARE’s Co-Chair and former chairman of the California Energy Commission Bill Keese said in a statement earlier this summer: "By linking the state to abundant supplies of solar, wind and geothermal power in the Imperial Valley, the Sunrise Powerlink will battle climate change by helping meet California’s environmental mandates of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy."

Hearings at the California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC) were delayed when Commissioner Dian Grueneich ruled that more analysis was needed. Hearings resumed in San Francisco this week and may run through the end of September. The CPUC and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management are expected to release an environmental impact statement in January, with a decision about whether to approve the line happening in mid-2008 at the earliest.

Cal-CARE
Energy and Nature
Rancho Penasquitos Concerned Citizens
Voice of San Diego

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 survey of citizens in nine of the world’s most powerful economies has revealed stark differences in their concerns about climate change and the optimism that it can be slowed.

HSBC – one of the largest banking and financial service organizations in the world – surveyed nine thousand citizens across Brazil, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, the UK, and the US for the HSBC Climate Confidence Index 2007. Those in the developing economies showed the greatest concern about climate change, were the most committed to slowing it, and were optimistic that they and their governments could do something about it. In contrast, the British, French, Germans, and Americans had the least confidence in their governments to address climate change and were the least hopeful of tackling the problem overall. Researchers, struck by this low level of confidence, called it "green rejection":

"…a rejection of the problem, of solutions to it, and of the institutions proposing them – is a growing issue in the developed economies. This may represent a natural and temporary stage of disillusionment while people are asked to work hard at something with no visible result. However, there are signs that the rejection is deeper than that. At the core are a strongminded, generally younger, group of people, who are confident with their personal interpretation of climate science, comfortable with uncertainty about the future, and suspicious of the motives of both governments and companies. While a minority, this is a growing constituency that any climate-related initiative needs to recognise."

Indians were the most concerned about climate change (60 percent), citing natural disasters like the 2005 tsunami as reasons for their worry. The Chinese had the highest level of trust that their government would fix the problem (46 percent). Conversely, only 22 percent of British and 32 percent of Americans surveyed said they were worries about climate change.

Of all respondents, climate change ranked second – slightly behind terrorism – among the list of issues people were concerned about.

Hindustan Times
HSBC Climate Confidence Index