Need an explanation of cap and trade that even a climate change denier could understand? Check out this short video hosted by Annie Leonard whose earlier film Story of Stuff took a hard look at our culture of excessive consumerism. She continues the theme with a series of new videos that will look at different aspects of sustainability. The first one, The Story of Cap & Trade, was released this month. Here’s what the project’s Web site says about the first installment:
The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the “devils in the details” in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what’s really required to tackle the climate crisis. If you’ve heard about cap and trade, but aren’t sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the film is for you.
Watch the film and learn why cap and trade is just another way for Wall Street to cash in on climate change without actually doing much to combat it. After you’ve watched, go here to take action.
from → Climate Policy
The United Nations conference on climate change kicks off today in Copenhagen, Denmark where Obama will make an appearance, committing the U.S. to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. While this emission reduction pledge falls short of what the science tells us is necessary (25- 40% greenhouse gas emission reductions below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to stabilize CO2 concentration below 450 parts per million) there are encouraging signs that the U.S. is assuming its needed leadership role in global climate talks.
For starters, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency will issue its “endangerment” finding today that greenhouse gas emissions constitute a threat to public health and welfare. This will trigger science-based regulations – a process that, while fraught with potential legal challenges, can deliver on Obama’s promise to commit the US to significant greenhouse gas emissions without the lobbyist-inspired congressional proposals that feature the same greenhouse-gas emission targets but with a heavy dose of corporate-utility giveaways, new nuclear power subsidies, expanded oil and natural gas drilling and the creation of a trillion-dollar pollution trading market that will be dominated by Wall Street. Indeed, Obama understands this, as his energy plan still assumes a 100% auction that requires all polluters to pay, thereby raising $627 billion from 2012-19, with 20% of that total dedicated to investment in clean energy technologies.
Public Citizen understands that climate change is a transformative event that requires us to rethink our corporate model of centralized energy production. Rather than promote market-based solutions to protecting the planet that will hand billions of dollars in windfall profits to polluters and Wall Street, we need a decentralized energy system where families generate their power needs from rooftop solar, small scale wind and massive new investments in energy efficiency.
Obama has led the way, highlighting the trifecta of diplomacy, regulations, and auctioning that reminds us that there are altermatives to the cap and trade Washington consensus that will only deliver new nukes, more oil drilling and more coal-power plants without a real change in our energy status-quo.
Tyson Slocum is the director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program
NEW YORK, New York, February 2, 2009 (ENS) – It’s hard to imagine standing in midtown Manhattan, but wetlands do exist within New York City, and they both protect the city and need protection themselves, according to a report released Friday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
A man-made extended detention basin in the Staten Island Bluebelt after one growing season.
“Many New Yorkers don’t realize there are thousands of acres of wetlands in the five boroughs,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “Wetlands are robust ecosystems that perform crucial environmental functions like trapping pollutants, capturing stormwater runoff, sequestering carbon dioxide, and moderating storm surges.”
Today, the city has only one percent of its historic freshwater wetlands and 10 percent of its historic tidal wetlands.
These tidal remaining wetlands are concentrated in Brooklyn around Jamaica Bay, in Queens, and in Staten Island, which also has freshwater wetlands.
Freshwater wetlands smaller than 12.4 acres are not protected by state law and are vulnerable to determinations that they are outside of the scope of federal protection.
The new report shows that the extent of these smaller wetlands in New York City is not fully known.
To gather more information on the smaller freshwater wetlands, the report recommends developing new high-resolution aerial and satellite wetland maps to precisely determine the size and location of unprotected wetlands before pursuing other options outlined in the report. This mapping is scheduled to start later this year.
“In PlaNYC, we promised to study wetlands and build on wetland successes like the impressive Staten Island Bluebelt stormwater project managed by the Department of Environmental Protection, as well as the thousands of acres of wetlands managed by the Parks Department,” said the mayor.
The Staten Island Bluebelt is an award winning, ecologically sound and cost-effective stormwater management for about one third of Staten Island’s land area. The program preserves natural drainage corridors, including streams, ponds, and other wetland areas, saving tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure costs when compared to providing conventional storm sewers for the same land area.
“The critical role that wetlands play in the Staten Island Bluebelt system demonstrates the ability of wetlands to improve water quality by removing nutrients, waste, and sediment from stormwater runoff,” the report states.
The study also identifies threats to wetlands that are not from a lack of regulatory protection, but rather from the existing polluted or degraded condition of wetlands that may have been caused by rising sea levels and stormwater runoff.
In addition, submerged lands policy will be more important as sea levels rise in response to climate change. While open waters are subject to extensive state and federal regulatory protections, the city lacks a comprehensive submerged lands management policy.
To address these threats, the city’s Climate Adaptation Task Force will release a report on policies for the adaptation of wetlands and other critical infrastructure later this year.
The city is also exploring alternative funding, mitigation banking and other mechanisms for improved restoration and maintenance of wetlands.
New York City and other municipalities in the state can request that the state designate any remaining wetlands below 12.4 acres to be of “unusual local importance” and thus within state protection.
Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have weakened the protection of “isolated” wetlands. As a result, the report suggests that the city conduct a thorough study of the hydrological and ecological connection between wetlands and U.S. navigable waters that are clearly covered by the Clean Water Act, to bring those areas more clearly within the jurisdiction of federal regulators.
The city could impose zoning overlay districts on private wetlands or buffer areas or both, and possibly extend that protection to near shore and other underwater lands.
The report suggests that the city could create a local wetland regulatory permitting scheme that would protect smaller freshwater wetlands below 12.4 acres, or buffer areas, or both.
Finally, the report suggests that the city could allocate more resources to the restoration or management of city-owned wetlands and acquire more privately-owned wetlands.
Click here to view the report, which fulfills one of the 127 commitments in Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2009. All rights reserved.
The question is no longer whether global warming is upon us … but how we can rise to its challenge.
MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is a world leader in this effort. Our many activities cohere around one strategy: science and policy have to work together.
Climate change is complex, so understanding it requires cutting-edge scientific research. Applying that research to moderate the most dangerous effects of climate change requires unprecedented action and cooperation across national boundaries.
Advancing both frontiers – research on natural science and on economic policy – is our unique mission. Joint Program researchers explore the interplay between global environmental systems and human activities, and the potential impact of policies intended to stabilize this relationship.
Our latest studies are helping the U.S. Congress weigh the pros and cons of bills that propose to set different limits on greenhouse gases. The Joint Program’s sophisticated number crunching and analyses show legislators to what extent their emission targets will slow global warming and how associated rules may affect the economy. Our analyses provide detailed scenarios describing the impacts on different segments of society resulting from different costs of controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.
Other Joint Program research demonstrates that just as there are costs to cutting down on greenhouse gases, there are significant economic gains – especially where human health is concerned. For example, our researchers predict positive health impacts if China were to increase regulations of industrial pollutants. Compelling arguments have been presented that decisions about regulating greenhouse gases and airborne pollutants should include considerations of health costs and benefits.
In addition, Joint Program scientists are now working on challenges such as the following:
At the heart of much of this work lies MIT’s Integrated Global System Model, a set of mathematical tools for investigating connections between the Earth’s ecosystems and the world’s economies. By constantly refining and re-running this model, we can estimate the likelihood of different changes and demonstrate the potential costs and benefits of specific policies – essential inputs to international dialogue toward a global response to climate change.
Technical and popular publications bring the results of the Joint Program’s insights to the public. We communicate directly with national and international policy-making bodies and with other researchers. We also host the semi-annual MIT Global Change Forum, which brings together experts and decision-makers from industry, government, academia, research institutes, and NGOs, to discuss the wide variety of issues related to global change.
Through our research, publications, conferences, and testimony, the Joint Program serves fellow scientists, as well as government and corporate leaders, policy makers, and a worldwide citizenry.
River floods and storms that send water surging through swamps and marshes near rivers and coastal areas might cut in half the average greenhouse gas emissions from those affected wetlands, according to recent research at Ohio State University. A study suggests that pulses of water through wetlands result in lower average emissions of greenhouse gases over the course of the year compared to the emissions from wetlands that receive a steady flow of water.
The study compared the emission of methane from wetlands under two different conditions, one with a pulsing hydrology system designed to resemble river flooding and one with a steady, low flow of water. The research showed that in areas of deeper water within the wetlands, methane gas fluxes were about twice as high in steady-flow systems than they were in pulsing systems. Methane emissions from edge zones, which are sometimes dry, were less affected by the different types of conditions.
Methane is the major component of natural gas and is a greenhouse gas associated with global warming. While the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that human activities are responsible for about 60 percent of methane emissions worldwide, wetlands are among the natural sources. Bacteria that produce methane during the decay of organic material cause wetlands to release the gas into the atmosphere.
The study by Ohio State University scientists is part of ongoing research comparing pulsing vs. steady-flow conditions in two experimental wetlands on the Columbus campus.
“Pulsing refers to a number of different conditions in wetlands – river pulses that happen on a seasonal basis, two-per-day coastal tides, and the rare but huge ones, like hurricanes or tsunamis,” said William Mitsch, the study’s senior author and director of the Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at Ohio State.
“Our point is that the healthiest systems and the ones with the lowest emissions of greenhouse gases are those that have these pulses and that are able to adapt to the pulses.”
The research was published in a recent issue of the journal Wetlands.
Often called the “kidneys” of the environment, wetlands act as buffer zones between land and waterways. They also act as sinks – wetlands filter out chemicals in water that runs off from farm fields, roads, parking lots and other surfaces, and hold on to them for years.
The study examined methane fluxes over a two-year period during which researchers created two different kinds of conditions in two 2.5-acre experimental wetlands. In 2004, scientists used pumps to deliver monthly pulses to create conditions in the wetlands resembling natural marshes flooded with river water. In 2005, researchers pumped approximately the same amount of water but maintained a constant flow of water through the wetlands to mimic less dynamic hydrologic conditions. In addition to methane emissions, the study also investigated other processes such as denitrification, sedimentation, and aquatic productivity.
The pulsing hydrology experiment was maintained and methane levels were measured approximately twice monthly over the two study years by Mitsch, also an environment and natural resources professor at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, and study co-author Anne Altor, a former Ohio State graduate student who is now a consultant in Indianapolis. During both years, more methane was emitted during the summer than during other seasons in all portions of the wetlands, with emissions about four times higher during summer in the edge zones. Consistently wet areas released more gases in the spring than did edge zones under both conditions.
Methane is composed of carbon and hydrogen, and its emissions are expressed in terms of the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. The emissions were at their highest during the summer of the steady-flow year, when the amount of methane released from the deepest part of the wetlands averaged 18.5 milligrams of carbon per square meter of wetland surface per hour. With these wetlands covering about 5 acres, the emissions amounted to an estimated 20 pounds of carbon per day. That level was twice as high as the summertime methane emissions measured from the deepest area of the wetlands during the year of pulsing conditions.
The average levels of methane emissions in the deepest water of the wetlands over the course of the study were 6 pounds of carbon per day in the pulsing year and almost 12 pounds of carbon per day during the steady-flow year.
The researchers suggested that slightly warmer soil temperatures and less fluctuation in water levels during the steady-flow year created conditions that promoted the production of methane.
A simultaneous study of carbon collection in the wetlands showed that the different water conditions had no significant effect on how much carbon was stored by the wetlands. Many experts suggest that the benefits of wetlands’ carbon storage capacity offset any damage resulting from their methane emissions.
Mitsch noted that pulses from storms not only help dissipate one negative effect of wetlands, but also serve as a reminder of how wetlands function to absorb the surge.
“If we didn’t have salt marshes and mangroves in subtropical and tropical coastal areas of the United States, it’s safe to say these current storms would have even more damaging effects,” he said.
“When you lose wetlands, you’ve lost a place for floodwater to go,” Mitsch noted. “Mother Nature is better at withstanding these pulses than we are. Whether it’s a flooding river or a hurricane, no matter what those pulses are, if there’s a natural ecosystem to absorb them, then we as humans would be safer.”
Published: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 – 15:23 in Earth & Climate
Get ready to join in on the EPA Watershed Academy 44th webcast seminar, ”Working Together to Address the Effects of Climate Change on Water Resources” 2-hour audio webcast, Tuesday, October 27, 2009. Times are: 1:00-3:00 p.m. Eastern time, 12:00-2:00 p.m. Central, 11:00-1:00 Mountain and 10:00-12:00 Pacific.
You are encouraged to register for the webcast here.
Climate change has been identified as one of EPA’s top priorities and the Agency is working to define strategies and actions to address climate change. EPA’s “National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change,” posted at www.epa.gov/ow/climatechange/strategy.html, provides basic information on climate change, the water-related effects of climate change, and the implications for EPA’s National Water Program.
Tune into this Webcast to learn the latest about what EPA is doing, as well as how Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program is developing climate change vulnerability assessments, adaptation plans, and indicators under EPA’s Climate Ready Estuary (CRE) program. Webcast participants are eligible to receive a certificate for their attendance. The Webcast presentations are posted in advance at www.epa.gov/watershedwebcasts and participants are encouraged to download them prior to the Webcast.
Instructors:
Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA’s Office of Water
Karen Metchis, Senior Climate Advisor, U.S. EPA’s Office of Water
Lisa Beever, Director, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, Florida
By Susanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, The Guardian.uk
The Obama administration, under pressure to show concrete action in the final stretch of climate change negotiations, rolled out its plans today to require automakers to produce cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars.
In an appearance at the White House, the transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, and the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lisa Jackson, introduced new fuel efficiency standards that would raise the average gas mileage for new cars and trucks to an average 35.5mpg by 2016.
![iStock_000006091090XSmall[1]](http://nvwetlands.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/iStock_000006091090XSmall1-201x300.jpg "iStock_000006091090XSmall[1]")
The measures, which were first announced last May, come barely 48 hours before the first of a series of high-level events in Washington, the United Nations and Pittsburgh which will focus on climate change, and which will test Barack Obama’s ability to deliver on his promises to get America to act to reduce carbon emissions.
Obama won praise from world leaders for his promises to undo George Bush’s environmental record, but there is growing scepticism abroad that Democrats will be able to overcome opposition in Congress and pass legislation that would put America on a path to cutting its carbon emissions.
Jackson told reporters the new standards would save 1.8bn barrels of oil, and were the equivalent of taking 42m cars off the road. According to government estimates, the new standards would cost up to $1,300 a car by 2016 – but those costs would pay for themselves through better gas mileage.
Obama, in a visit to a General Motors plant in Ohio, said the measures, which were first announced last May, were long overdue. “This action will give our auto companies some long overdue clairty, stability and predictability.”
Environmental organisations also praised the move – noting that it was the first time the EPA had used its powers under the clean air act to try to reduce global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists called it the biggest improvement on fuel economy and exhaust standards in 30 years – although it gave far lower estimates for fuel economies than the Obama administration.
“You have to go back to the days of disco to see a fuel economy improvement like this,” said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer in the organisation’s Clean Vehicles Program. “These proposed standards will be the biggest increase in fuel economy in more than 30 years. That’s good news for the environment, consumers’ wallets and our nation’s energy security.”
However, the UCS and other groups expressed concerns at measures that could provide a loophole to car makers for meeting the new requirements. Foreign automakers who sell a limited number of cars in the US will also not be held to the standard.
The new regulations will be finalised in late March.
Today’s announcement was widely seen as an effort by the Obama administration to show that it is working hard to reduce America’s carbon emissions despite signs that climate change legislation could be stalling in the Senate.
Democratic leaders in the Senate have delayed taking up the climate change bill so they can focus on healthcare. That has fuelled concerns in Washington and abroad that a climate change bill could falter.
Such concerns have grown as the administration comes into the spotlight ahead of a UN climate change summit next week. The summit will be attended by nearly 100 world leaders, and America – as a major polluter – is expecting pressure from the small and developing countries that will suffer the most severe consequences of climate change to show it is taking concrete action.
With that in mind, the Obama administration has carefully coordinated a number of measures to showcase its commitment to action – even in the absence of legislation.
The EPA followed by today’s roll-out by announcing that it would more rigorously monitor toxic discharges from coal plants into the water supply. The announcement comes a day after three environmental organisations threatened to sue the EPA for failing to regulate the discharge of toxic metals such as lead, selenium, cadmium and mercury from the coal plants.
The EPA said the new rules, which have been pending since 1982, would be ready by 2012.
Also today, the State Department announced that the administration had signed on to a North American initiative to phase out production of another greenhouse gas, hydroflurocarbon or HFC, which is used in refrigerators and air conditioning. HFC, unlike other coolants, does not damage the ozone layer but it does contribute to climate change.
from George Monbiot’s Blog, The Guardian.uk:
“Research suggesting that global temperatures may fall is being used by deniers and sceptics to dismiss the entire canon of climate science”
Could it be true that global temperatures will fall before they rise? That’s the thrust of a presentation at last week’s World Climate conference. Mojib Latif of Kiel University in Germany suggested that cooling caused by natural factors could suppress global temperatures for several years, after which they will start to rise again.
Cooler, then warmer? Climate modeling represents a best guess based on hard data rather than a basis of denial.
His presentation, first reported by the eagle-eyed Fred Pearce in the New Scientist, has been seized upon by sceptics and deniers all over the blogosphere. It was picked up this morning by the BBC’s Today programme, which invited my old friend Philip Stott (who spends his time championing such dubious productions as The Great Global Warming Swindle and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear) to raise questions about the global warming thesis.
Professor Latif suggested that the long-term warming trend could be masked – perhaps for as long as 10 or 20 years – by a temporary cooling caused by natural fluctuations in currents and temperatures called the North Atlantic oscillation. “Thereafter,” he told the Today programme, “temperatures will pick up again and continue to warm.”
Could Latif be right? Who knows? As far as I can tell, his paper has not yet been published, so other scientists haven’t had the opportunity to see how strong it is. Vicky Pope of the Met Office suggested this morning that his model might not be as accurate as hers, as it measures only sea-surface temperatures, while the Met Office also takes temperatures below the surface into account.
We know that the world’s climate system is a noisy one, in which natural variations of all kinds jostle constantly with the man-made warming signal. No one ever proposed that the global warming trend would be a smooth one, in which temperatures move up a notch every year. What we have seen so far are minor fluctuations weaving around a solid long-term trend. Nor does anyone claim that climate models are perfect. They need to be constantly refined and updated as new information comes to light. But in seeking to predict the future, you have only two options: wild guesswork, supported by a feeling in your bones, or models incorporating all the data scientists can lay their hands on. Those who reject modelling altogether must propose a better means of prediction. Seaweed, entrails and crystal balls don’t qualify.
But Latif’s presentation is being used by the deniers to dismiss the entire canon of climate science. They choose to overlook the inconvenient fact that he is also a climate scientist, who believes that the warming trend caused by human actions will bounce back as the oscillation moves into another phase.
People demand certainty, but the future resists it. All we can do is to make use of the best available information. And this tells us that we must act.
The following video allows noted scientists – such as Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu - speak to this serious issue, dismissing those who would characterize this phenomenon as a passing trend that will reverse itself in time.
In the following photos of Pt. Barrow, Alaska, recently released by the White House, it’s obvious that the sea ice is in retreat.
This is the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill, known for short as “ACES,” that includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable requirements for utilities, studies and incentives regarding new carbon capture and sequestration technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, and grants for green jobs, among other things.