Author: Grist – the Latest from Grist

  • Automakers go ‘green’ in Beijing

    by Agence France-Presse

    BYD’s all-electric e6                                           Photo courtesy of anthonares via FlickrBEIJING – Dozens of carmakers are showing off “green” vehicles at the Beijing Auto Show as they position themselves for a hoped-for alternative-energy boom in the world’s biggest auto market.

    SAIC Motor Corporation, China’s biggest car maker in terms of sales, unveiled its E1 electric car at the week-long show, where nearly 1,000 vehicles are on display—mostly gas-guzzlers, but also 95 hybrid and electric models.

    U.S. auto giant General Motors and China’s BYD were also wooing customers with their “green” models in a market that raced past the United States last year to take pole position.

    GM rolled out its Volt electric car, which is expected to be on the road in 2011, while BYD, part-owned by U.S. billionaire investor Warren Buffett, launched its five-seat, all-electric e6.

    Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co. announced at the show it would invest about $542 million dollars in developing alternative-energy cars, in a sign of the growing importance of that segment of the market.

    “I think there is a tremendous amount of opportunity here,” said Paige Mantel of Better Place, a U.S. maker of electric-vehicle systems such as battery chargers.

    But analysts warned that the road to a viable green vehicle market in China remains a long one that requires government subsidies to smooth the way.

    “The government needs to play a big role to get critical mass,” said Raymond Tsang, a Shanghai-based partner at consulting firm Bain & Company. “What is lacking is more systematic, consistent subsidies.”

    Alarmed by worsening pollution and a soaring reliance on oil, China is pushing green energy technologies, saying it wants sales of such vehicles to account for 10 to 15 percent of total sales by 2020. But progress has been slow.

    The government had been expected in January to announce subsidies for alternative-energy vehicles that would make them more affordable for price-sensitive Chinese consumers. However, Beijing reportedly delayed the announcement to seek further input from automakers.

    In the meantime, high price tags, limited driving ranges, and lack of battery-recharging stations were putting the brakes on sales, said Finbarr O’Neill, global president of consulting firm JD Power and Associates. Less than 4,000 hybrids were sold in China last year while electric car sales were “negligible,” he said.

    That compares with total China vehicle sales of 13.64 million in 2009—vaulting it past the United States—as increasingly well-off consumers snapped up fuel-guzzling models, helped by government sales incentives.

    Green-energy vehicles remained considerably more expensive than standard internal combustion engine versions, with a rechargeable battery adding $10,000 to $15,000 to the price tag, said O’Neill. “I don’t see a sizable part of the buying public that will pay a premium just to have an ecologically positive car,” he said. “Without subsidies, it is going to be very difficult for companies like BYD to reach critical mass.”

    BYD reportedly delivered just 48 F3DM plug-in hybrid sedans in 2009 at $22,000 each. It sold 290,000 of the fuel-powered version at $8,700 apiece.

    China’s government and automakers have invested less than $1.5 billion in developing “green” vehicles since 2006, including $161 million from Beijing, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology said in January.

    Despite the sluggish start, there is optimism among industry players such as Better Place. The company last weekend signed a preliminary agreement with Chinese independent car maker Chery to develop electric vehicle prototypes for government pilot programs.

    “It is the largest car market in the world and it is a country that is looking for alternatives to oil,” Mantel said.

    The Beijing Auto Show, which opened to the public on Tuesday, runs through May 2.

    Related Links:

    The politics of the Gulf oil spill

    Oil burn operation begins in Gulf of Mexico

    Cape Wind offshore project approved by Obama admin after nine-year battle






  • Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    by Agence France-Presse

    Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidWASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he was determined to pass sweeping bills to overhaul immigration and to battle climate change this year despite stiff opposition to both measures.

    “Immigration and energy are equally vital to our economic and national security. And we’ve ignored both of them for far too long. I’m committed to doing both this session of Congress,” Reid told reporters.

    Reid pledged to act first on legislation to combat global warming, noting that the bill was “much further down the road as far as a product” and stressing that “if you have a bill that’s ready to go, that’s the one I’m going to go to.”

    His comments came after a key Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), abruptly pulled out of efforts to push forward on a compromise energy and climate bill, citing Democratic plans to move first on immigration.

    Graham, Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conon.) had been set to unveil their bill on Monday, but the Republican’s abrupt about-face scuttled the plan.

    Kerry said Tuesday that he was poised to send the legislation to the Environmental Protection Agency for a formal assessment of its likely impact on the U.S. economy and on emissions of greenhouse gases. “We are sending the bill to be modeled, now, with Lindsey Graham’s consent and agreement,” said Kerry. “So we’re full speed ahead, folks, notwithstanding this moment of public stall, and we hope the issue can be resolved soon.”

    The House of Representatives passed its climate and energy bill last year, and Democratic leaders there say action on immigration will depend on the Senate.

    Senate Democrats and their two independent allies control 59 seats and will need at least one Republican to join them on both bills in order to rally the 60 votes needed to ensure passage over any delaying tactics.

    Related Links:

    14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    Engineers plan underwater dome to contain Gulf oil spill

    The upside of the Senate climate bill’s troubles






  • 14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    The EPA draws
    inspiration from The Biggest Loser in a new competition that pits 14 buildings
    against each other to see which can trim its energy usage the most.

    The National
    Building Competition
    is explicitly modeled after the weight-loss reality TV
    show, spotlighting structures that include a 23-story Manhattan office
    building, a San Diego Marriott hotel, a Colorado elementary school, and a Chapel
    Hill, N.C., dormitory. The 200 applicants were required to use a host of energy-efficiency tools from the EPA and Department of Energy. The 14 contestants are having their energy use measured from September 2009 through this August. The
    building that saves the most will be announced the winner on Oct. 26.

    It’s an attempt to
    inject a shot of drama into the, uh, titillating world of building efficiency.
    It’s a really important policy sector, proven by the fact that it has charts
    like this
    :

    To back off from the
    flippancy, building efficiency overhauls should be among
    the least controversial of clean-energy improvements
    , since most steps pay
    for themselves fairly quickly.

    Here’s the EPA competition
    explained by Bob Harper, who is apparently a guy from TV:

    Related Links:

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    Sit, stay, recycle [VIDEO]

    Engineers plan underwater dome to contain Gulf oil spill






  • Obama: Our security, economy, and future depend on comprehensive climate legislation

    by Brad Johnson

    Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

    The process-based and partisan bickering that is derailing the Senate effort to craft climate legislation provides a good opportunity to question why this ugly process is even worthwhile. Politicians seem worried that re-election is more important than policy action, failing to recognize that clean energy reform is actually the key to political success. The mood in Washington’s marble halls and office cubicles is completely disconnected with the sense of urgency and hope found just a few blocks away on the National Mall this Earth Day weekend, in the streets of Detroit, or in the farms of Roscoe, Texas. Business as usual is waging war on America’s working families, with profits for the few and irresponsible coming at the expense of everyone else’s future. Progressive clean energy reform will change the status quo, putting America to work building a stronger, fairer green economy.

    What clean energy reform really means

    Real benefits for real people. The economy of the past, dependent on dirty fuels, puts burdens on real people – harming their health, their children, and their pocketbook. From machinists in Eaton Rapids to entrepreneurs in New Orleans, clean energy reform gives real benefits to real working families from day one, making the air cleaner and the world safer while freeing them from enriching polluters and dictators for their energy needs.

    Reward work instead of pollution. The gray energy economy relies on fossil fuels that are “cheap” only because their real costs are hidden. Money flows into low-labor, high-waste energy profiteers even as society is stuck with what the market calls “externalities.” Closing the carbon loophole will get Wall Street to invest in efficiency and renewable energy jobs that can’t be exported, restoring American manufacturing in the 21st century.

    Profits with principles. The Bush-Cheney-Gingrich energy scheme is a race to the bottom, as corporations create short-term shareholder and executive profits by corrupting the law and trashing principles of worker safety, public health, and environmental protection. Clean energy reform will allow America to dig out of this toxic hole, rewarding ethical investment instead of crony capitalism.

    Give everybody a fair shot at a fair deal. Millions of Americans are ready and able to work hard to care for their families, but unregulated speculators and power merchants have left Main Street in disrepair. From the ashes of the gray economy we have the opportunity to rebuild America right, returning power to communities and giving people willing to work a fair shot at a clean and prosperous future.

    Progress is good politics. The destruction of our planet’s climate, with increasing floods, fires, storms, and droughts, threatens the hope of recovery and the fate of our nation. The grip over our political system by polluters who siphon the wealth of working Americans into offshore accounts weakens our economy. The American people have demanded change, and want action. Politicians who have the courage to become leaders in this time of crisis can rekindle our faith in the promise of America.

    As President Barack Obama said of “comprehensive energy and climate legislation” today at a wind turbine plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, “Our security, our economy, and the future of our planet depend on it.”

    Update: Potentially ending his spat with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) admits that “the energy bill is ready”:

    The energy bill is much further down the road … Common sense dictates that if you have a bill that’s ready to go, that’s the one I’m going to go to. The energy bill is ready and we’ll move that more quickly than the bill we don’t have. I don’t have an immigration bill.

    Update: Tribune reporter Jim Tankersley tweets that Graham has also dialed back his rhetoric: “Source: Graham floats compromise plan to revive #climatebill: Climate goes first; #immigration comes to vote after Nov. election.”

    Related Links:

    Obama climate agenda in turmoil after Republican pulls out of compromise

    Graham says he’s going to bail on the climate bill

    NYPD trashes hundreds of bikes in security response






  • EPA scientist warns Atlantic seaboard will be swallowed by rising seas

    by Josh Harkinson

    .series-head{background:url(http://www.grist.org/i/assets/climate_desk/header.gif) no-repeat; height:68px; text-indent:-9999px;} h3.subscribe-head{padding-left:5px;background-color:black;color:#ff8400;} dl.series-nav{margin-top:-15px;}

    For most of the 20th
    century, Chesapeake Beach, Maryland, was known for its boardwalk,
    amusement park, and wide, sandy beaches, popular with daytrippers from
    Washington, D.C. “The bathing beach has a frontage of three miles,”
    boasted a tourist brochure from about 1900, “and is equal, if not
    superior, to any beach on the Atlantic Coast.”

    Today,
    on a cloudless spring afternoon, the resort town’s sweeping view of
    Chesapeake Bay is no less stunning. But there’s no longer any beach in
    Chesapeake Beach. Where there once was sand, water now laps against a
    seven-foot-high wall of boulders protecting a strip of pricey homes
    marked with “No Trespassing” signs.

    Surveying
    the armored shoreline, Jim Titus explains how the natural sinking of
    the shoreline and slow but steady sea-level rise, mostly due to climate
    change, have driven the bay’s water more than a foot higher over the
    past century. Reinforcing the eroding shore with a sea wall held the
    water back, but it also choked off the natural supply of sand that had
    replenished the beach. What sand remained gradually sank beneath the
    rising water.

    Titus, the Environmental Protection Agency’s resident expert on
    sea-level rise, first happened upon Maryland’s disappearing beaches 15
    years ago while looking for a place to windsurf. “Having the name
    ‘beach,’” he discovered, “is not a very good predictor of having a
    beach.” Since then, he’s kept an eye out for other beach towns that
    have lost their namesakes—Maryland’s Masons Beach and Tolchester Beach,
    North Carolina’s Pamlico Beach, and many more. (See a map of Maryland’s phantom beach towns here.)
    A 54-year old with a thick shock of hair and sturdy build, Titus could
    pass for a vacationer in his Panama hat, khakis, and polo shirt. But as
    he picks his way over the rocky shore, he’s anything but relaxed.

    For nearly 30 years, Titus has been sounding the alarm about our
    rising oceans. Global warming is melting polar ice, adding to the
    volume of the oceans, as well as warming up seawater, causing it to
    expand. Most climatologists expect oceans around the world to rise
    between 1.5 and 5 feet this century. Some of the hardest-hit areas
    could be in our own backyard: Erosion and a shift in ocean currents
    could cause water to rise four feet or more along much of the East
    Coast. Titus, who contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change’s Nobel Prize-winning reports, has done more than anyone to
    determine how those rising seas will affect us and what can be done
    about them.

    Like his occasional collaborator, NASA climatologist James Hansen,
    Titus has decided to speak out. He’s crisscrossed the country to meet
    with state and local officials in coastal areas, urging them to start
    planning now for the slow-motion flood. Yet his warnings have mostly
    fallen on deaf ears. “We were often told by mid-level officials that
    their bosses did not want to plan for anything past the next election,”
    he says.

    Neither, it seems, does the federal government. Over the past
    decade, Titus and a team of contractors combined reams of data to
    construct a remarkably detailed model of how sea-level rise will impact
    the eastern seaboard. It was the largest such study ever undertaken,
    and its findings were alarming: Over the next 90 years, 1,000 square
    miles of inhabited land on the East Coast could be flooded, and most of
    the wetlands between Massachusetts and Florida could be lost. The
    favorably peer-reviewed study was scheduled for publication in early
    2008 as part of a Bush Administration report on sea-level rise, but it
    never saw the light of day-an omission criticized by the EPA’s own
    scientific advisory committee. Titus has urged the more
    science-friendly Obama administration to publish his work, but so far,
    it hasn’t-and won’t say why.

    So Titus recently launched a personal website, risingsea.net,
    to publish his work. “I decided to do my best to prevent the taxpayer
    investment from being wasted,” he says. The site includes “When the North Pole Melts,” a prescient holiday ditty recorded by his musical alter ego, Captain Sea Level, in the late ‘80s.

    Titus gazes at Chesapeake Beach’s jagged shoreline, where two
    children scramble over the barrier of large grey boulders known as a
    revetment. “The children of 21st Century Chesapeake Beach, what do they
    do?” he asks. “They play on revetments.” A generation ago, these kids
    might have been skipping through the waves. A generation from now, many
    of the rocks they’re playing on will almost certainly be underwater.

    Living near the ocean has always come with the risk of getting wet.
    Yet coastal dwellers whose homes got swamped by the occasional storm
    surge could rely on the water to eventually recede. That certainty is
    gone. Titus has calculated that a three-foot rise in sea level will
    push back East Coast shorelines an average of 300 to 600 feet in the
    next 90 years, threatening to submerge densely developed areas
    inhabited by some 3 million people, including large parts of New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.
    As Margaret Davidson, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration’s Coastal Services Center in Charleston, South Carolina,
    puts it, “Today’s flood is tomorrow’s high tide.”

    The rising waters can be kept at bay by constructing dikes and bulkheads,
    pumping sand to fill out receding beaches, and elevating existing
    buildings and roads on embankments or pylons. But such efforts may
    prove prohibitively expensive—Titus says that in the lower 48 states
    alone, they could cost as much as $1 trillion over the next century,
    and he estimates that in the process, 60 to 90 percent of the East
    Coast’s wetlands could be destroyed as bulkheads and other defensive
    measures restrict the movement of estuaries and marshes, drowning them
    when the ocean rises.

    So are developers getting ready for the water? The National
    Association of Home Builders, the housing industry’s largest trade
    group, has no policy on adapting coastal projects to account for rising
    sea levels. “While sea level rise may be a real issue in some areas,”
    Susan Asmus, NAHB’s senior vice president of regulatory and
    environmental affairs, told me in an email, “it is but one of many
    considerations that are likely already taken into account during the
    planning process.” Mother Jones contacted the nation’s 10
    largest homebuilders, including D.R. Horton, Pulte Homes, and Lennar;
    none would say how they are responding to sea level rise.

    Nor is there any evidence that the issue has much traction with
    homeowners—and why should it? Property insurance is readily available
    in most coastal areas, if not through private insurers, then through
    state governments and FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. Though
    the NFIP requires policyholders to live above the 100-year high-water
    mark, it doesn’t account for how that line may creep inland in the
    future. Besides, most people would plan to resell their beach houses
    long before they expect them to be swallowed by encroaching waves.

    What about government? Most coastal states have done little or
    nothing to regulate shoreline development, often for fear of
    litigation. In 1988, South Carolina’s Beachfront Management Act
    required new beach homes to be set back far enough from the water to be
    protected from at least 40 years of erosion. A property owner named
    David Lucas sued, and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that the
    construction ban had deprived him of any “economically viable use” of
    his coastal properties, a “taking” that required the state to
    compensate him. “After Lucas, fewer people spoke seriously about
    stopping development,” Titus says.

    A few state and local governments have taken more constructive
    action. Several states limit development near tidal waters (Maine and
    Rhode Island have done this specifically in response to sea-level
    rise). Chatham, Massachusetts, cites sea-level rise as one reason why
    it prohibits new homes, even elevated ones, below 100-year flood lines.
    (State courts have upheld those limits in Chatham and Maine because
    they still allow property to be used for recreation, farming, and other
    profitable activities.) In California, where erosion and winter storms
    routinely knock multimillion dollar homes off seaside cliffs, the
    state’s Coastal Commission has long required anyone who builds on
    coastal bluffs to submit a geotechnical report proving that their home
    won’t fall into the ocean. Three years ago, it began requiring the
    reports to account for sea-level rise. And in a groundbreaking 2008
    executive order, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger directed state agencies
    to plan for sea-level rise in their construction projects.

    A handful of developers have also started to seriously grapple with
    sea-level rise. A residential high-rise project on Treasure Island, a
    former naval base in the San Francisco Bay, is being built far from the
    shoreline and is reserving funds for a protective berm if the water
    rises even higher than the three feet that’s anticipated. And in the
    wake of Hurricane Katrina, the insurance industry drew up standards to
    fortify houses for stronger hurricanes and higher waves; so far,
    though, only 200 houses nationwide have been built to comply with the
    standards.

    Most coastal dwellers are focused on riding out the next surge, not
    the next century. You can’t really blame them—nobody really wants to
    hear that their days on the beach are numbered.

    Case in point: Beyoncé‘s dad. Matthew Knowles has been locked in a
    bitter struggle to save his beach house in Galveston, which now sits on
    top of the high-tide line thanks to Hurricane Ike. In most states,
    Knowles would be allowed to shore up his home, but not in Texas, which
    is known for one of the most progressive laws in the country on beach
    access. The state’s Open Beaches Act provides that beach as a public
    resource that must be protected from “erosion or reduction caused by development.”

    Last year, after Knowles started reinforcing his property with tons
    of cement, the Texas General Land Office informed him that paving over
    the beach is illegal. Even so, he continued and then surrounded his
    home with sod, planters, and sandbags. In March, the agency notified
    Knowles that it was preparing to fine him up to $2,000 a day for
    violating the Texas Open Beaches Act by interfering with “the right of
    the public to use the beach.” Knowles did not respond to a request for
    comment.

    Historically, the 51-year-old law has been used to prevent property
    owners from walling off the beach in front of their homes. But
    officials say the law clearly applies even when the beach comes to the
    houses, rather than vice versa. “Even if you make $80 million a year,
    we don’t care,” says Jim Suydam, a spokesman for the Texas General Land
    Office. “The beach is the public’s.” Incorporated into the state
    constitution last year and vigorously supported by the state’s
    conservative, gun-packing land commissioner, the Open Beaches Act is
    remarkably popular, in part because it can guarantee beach access for
    ATVs.

    Titus views the Texas Open Beaches Act as one of the more promising
    tools for preparing for higher water. It has unintended environmental
    benefits, ensuring that beaches can migrate inland instead of being
    walled off—and at the same time, it sidesteps any
    debate over climate change. “Developers who deny that the sea will rise
    would view the policy as costing them nothing,” because it wouldn’t
    prevent them from building near the shore, he notes. Only the diehard
    beach dwellers would stand to get soaked.

    With additional reporting by Kate Sheppard.

     

    Related Links:

    What climate change means for the wine industry

    Burning oil rig sinks into Gulf of Mexico

    Can an SEC ruling reverse climate change?






  • Sit, stay, recycle [VIDEO]

    by Jen Harper

    Has “green” jumped the shark if even pugs are on board? They’re always late adopters. For Puglet’s next trick, he will push climate-change legislation forward.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Like what you see? Sign up to receive The Grist List, our email roundup of pun-usual green news just like this, sent out every Friday.

    Related Links:

    14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    DIY cheap, green burial with dryer lint

    Whales bring up the rear in the fight against oceanic acidification






  • What climate change means for the wine industry

    by Mark Hertsgaard

    .series-head{background:url(http://www.grist.org/i/assets/climate_desk/header.gif) no-repeat; height:68px; text-indent:-9999px;} h3.subscribe-head{padding-left:5px;background-color:black;color:#ff8400;} dl.series-nav{margin-top:-15px;}

    John Williams has been making wine in California’s
    Napa Valley for nearly 30 years, and he farms so ecologically that his
    peers call him Mr. Green. But if you ask him how climate change will
    affect Napa’s world famous wines, he gets irritated, almost insulted.
    “You know, I’ve been getting that question a lot recently, and I feel we
    need to keep this issue in perspective,” he told me. “When I hear about
    global warming in the news, I hear that it’s going to melt the Arctic,
    inundate coastal cities, displace millions and millions of people,
    spread tropical diseases and bring lots of other horrible effects. Then I
    get calls from wine writers and all they want to know is, ‘How is the
    character of cabernet sauvignon going to change under global warming?’ I
    worry about global warming, but I worry about it at the humanity scale,
    not the vineyard scale.”

    Williams is the founder of Frog’s Leap, one of the most ecologically
    minded wineries in Napa and, for that matter, the world. Electricity for
    the operation comes from 1,000 solar panels erected along the Merlot
    vines; the heating and cooling are supplied by a geothermal system that
    taps into the earth’s heat. The vineyards are 100 percent organic
    and-most radical of all, considering Napa’s dry summers-there is no
    irrigation.

    Yet despite his environmental fervor, Williams dismisses questions
    about preparing Frog’s Leap for the impacts of climate change. “We have
    no idea what effects global warming will have on the conditions that
    affect Napa Valley wines, so to prepare for those changes seems to me to
    be whistling past the cemetery,” he says, a note of irritation in his
    voice. “All I know is, there are things I can do to stop, or at least
    slow down, global warming, and those are things I should do.”

    Williams has a point about keeping things in perspective. At a time
    when climate change is already making it harder for people in Bangladesh
    to find enough drinking water, it seems callous to fret about what
    might happen to premium wines. But there is much more to the question of
    wine and climate change than the character of pinot noir. Because wine
    grapes are extraordinarily sensitive to temperature, the industry
    amounts to an early-warning system for problems that all food crops—and
    all industries—will confront as global warming intensifies. In vino
    veritas, the Romans said: In wine there is truth. The
    truth now is that the earth’s climate is changing much faster than the
    wine business, and virtually every other business on earth, is preparing
    for.

    All crops need favorable climates, but few are as vulnerable to
    temperature and other extremes as wine grapes. “There is a fifteenfold
    difference in the price of cabernet sauvignon grapes that are grown in
    Napa Valley and cabernet sauvignon grapes grown in Fresno” in
    California’s hot Central Valley, says Kim Cahill, a consultant to the
    Napa Valley Vintners’ Association. “Cab grapes grown in Napa sold [in
    2006] for $4,100 a ton. In Fresno the price was $260 a ton. The
    difference in average temperature between Napa and Fresno was 5 degrees
    Fahrenheit.”

    Numbers like that help explain why climate change is poised to
    clobber the global wine industry, a multibillion-dollar business whose
    decline would also damage the much larger industries of food,
    restaurants, and tourism. Every business
    on earth will feel the effects of global warming
    , but only the ski
    industry—which appears doomed in its current form—is more visibly
    targeted by the hot, erratic weather that lies in store over the next 50
    years. In France, the rise in temperatures may render the Champagne
    region too hot to produce fine champagne. The same is true for the
    legendary reds of Châteauneuf du Pape, where the stony white soil’s
    ability to retain heat, once considered a virtue, may now become a
    curse. The world’s other major wine-producing regions—California, Italy,
    Spain, Australia—are also at risk.

    If current trends continue, the “premium wine grape production area
    [in the United States] … could decline by up to 81 percent by the late
    21st century,” a team of scientists wrote in a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
    Sciences
    in 2006. The culprit was not so much the rise in average temperatures but an increased frequency of extremely hot days, defined
    as above 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit). If no adaptation
    measures were taken, these increased heat spikes would “eliminate wine
    grape production in many areas of the United States,” the scientists
    wrote.

    In theory, winemakers can defuse the threat by simply shifting
    production to more congenial locations. Indeed, champagne grapes have
    already been planted in England and some respectable vintages harvested.
    But there are limits to this strategy. After all, temperature is not
    the sole determinant of a wine’s taste. What the French call terroir—a
    term that refers to the soil of a given region but also includes the
    cultural knowledge of the people who grow and process grapes—is crucial.
    “Wine is tied to place more than any other form of agriculture, in the
    sense that the names of the place are on the bottle,” says David Graves,
    the co-founder of the Saintsbury wine company in the Napa Valley. “If
    traditional sugar-beet growing regions in eastern Colorado had to move
    north, nobody would care. But if wine grapes can’t grow in the Napa
    Valley anymore—which is an extreme statement, but let’s say so for the
    sake of argument—suddenly you have a global warming poster child right
    up there with the polar bears.”

    A handful of climate-savvy winemakers such as Graves are trying to
    rouse their colleagues to action before it is too late, but to little
    avail. Indeed, some winemakers are actually rejoicing in the higher
    temperatures of recent years. “Some of the most expensive wines in Spain
    come from the Rioja Alta and Rioja Alavesa regions,” Pancho Campo, the
    founder and president of the Wine Academy of Spain, says. “They are
    getting almost perfect ripeness every year now for Tempranillo. This
    makes the winemakers say, ‘Who cares about climate change? We are
    getting perfect vintages.’ The same thing has happened in Bordeaux. It
    is very difficult to tell someone, ‘This is only going to be the case
    for another few years.’”

    The irony is, the wine business is better situated than most to adapt
    to global warming. Many of the people in the industry followed in their
    parents’ footsteps and hope to pass the business on to their kids and
    grandkids someday. This should lead them to think farther
    ahead than the average corporation, with its obsessive focus on this
    quarter’s financial results
    . But I found little evidence this is
    happening.

     

    The exception: Alois Lageder, a man whose family has
    made wine in Alto Adige, the northernmost province in Italy, since
    1855. The setting, at the foot of the Alps, is majestic. Looming over
    the vines are massive outcroppings of black and gray granite
    interspersed with flower-strewn meadows and wooded hills that inevitably
    call to mind The
    Sound of Music
    . Locals admire Lageder for having led Alto
    Adige’s evolution from producing jug wine to boasting some of the best
    whites in Italy. In October 2005, Lageder hosted the world’s first conference
    on the future of wine under climate change
    . “We must recognize that
    climate change is not a problem of the future,” Lageder told his
    colleagues. “It is here today and we must adapt now.”

    As it happens, Alto Adige is the location of one of the most dramatic
    expressions of modern global warming: the discovery of the so-called Iceman—the
    frozen remains of a herder who lived in the region 5,300 years ago. The
    corpse was found in 1991 in a mountain gully, almost perfectly
    preserved-even the skin was intact—because it had lain beneath mounds of
    snow and ice since shortly after his death (a murder, forensic
    investigators later concluded from studying the trajectory of an
    arrowhead lodged in his left shoulder). He would not have been found
    were it not for global warming, says Hans Glauber, the director of the
    Alto Adige Ecological Institute: “Temperatures have been rising in the
    Alps about twice as fast as in the rest of the world,” he notes.

    Lageder heard about global warming in the early 1990s and felt
    compelled to take action. It wasn’t easy—“I had incredible fights with
    my architect about wanting good insulation,” he says—but by 1996 he had
    installed the first completely privately financed solar energy system in
    Italy. He added a geothermal energy system as well. Care was taken to
    integrate these cutting-edge technologies into the existing site; during
    a tour, I emerged from a dark fermentation cellar with its own wind
    turbine into the bright sunlight of a gorgeous courtyard dating to the
    15th century. Going green did make the renovation cost 30 percent more,
    Lageder says, “but that just means there is a slightly longer
    amortization period. In fact, we made up the cost difference through
    increased revenue, because when people heard about what we were doing,
    they came to see it and they ended up buying our wines.”

    The record summer
    heat
    that struck Italy and the rest of Europe in 2003, killing tens
    of thousands, made Lageder even more alarmed. “When I was a kid, the
    harvest was always after November 1, which was a cardinal date,” he told
    me. “Nowadays, we start between the 5th and 10th of September and
    finish in October.” Excess heat raises the sugar level of grapes to
    potentially ruinous levels. Too much sugar can result in wine that is
    unbalanced and too alcoholic—wine known as “cooked” or “jammy.” Higher
    temperatures may also increase the risk of pests and parasites, because
    fewer will die off during the winter. White wines, whose skins are less
    tolerant of heat, face particular difficulties as global warming
    intensifies. “In 2003, we ended up with wines that had between 14 and 16
    percent alcohol,” Lageder recalled, “whereas normally they are between
    12 and 14 percent. The character of our wine was changing.”

    A 2 percent increase in alcohol may sound like a tiny difference, but
    the effect on a wine’s character and potency is considerable. “In
    California, your style of wine is bigger, with alcohol levels of 14 and
    15, even 16 percent,” Lageder continued. “I like some of those wines a
    lot. But the alcohol level is so high that you have one glass and
    then”—he slashed his hand across his throat—“you’re done; any more and
    you will be drunk. In Europe, we prefer to drink wine throughout the
    evening, so we favor wines with less alcohol. Very hot weather makes
    that harder to achieve.”

    There are tricks grape growers and winemakers can use to lower
    alcohol levels. The leaves surrounding the grapes can be allowed to grow
    bushier, providing more shade. Vines can be replaced with different
    clones or rootstocks. Growing grapes at higher altitudes, where the air
    is cooler, is another option. So is changing the type of grapes being
    grown.

    But laws and cultural traditions currently stand in the way of such
    adaptations. So-called AOC laws (Appellation d’Origine Côntrollée)
    govern wine-grape production throughout France, and in parts of Italy,
    and Spain as well. As temperatures rise further, these AOC laws and
    kindred regulations are certain to face increased challenge. “I was just
    in Burgundy,” Pancho Campo told me in March 2008, “and producers there
    are very concerned, because they know that chardonnay and pinot noir are
    cool-weather wines, and climate change is bringing totally the
    contrary. Some of the producers were even considering starting to study
    Syrah and other varieties. At the moment, they are not allowed to plant
    other grapes, but these are questions people are asking.”

    The greatest resistance, however, may come from the industry itself.
    “Some of my colleagues may admire my views on this subject, but few have
    done much,” says Lageder. “People are trying to push the problem away,
    saying, ‘Let’s do our job today and wait and see in the future if
    climate change becomes a real problem.’ But by then it will be too late
    to save ourselves.”

     

    If the wine industry does not adapt to climate
    change, life will go on—with less conviviality and pleasure, perhaps,
    but it will go on. Fine wine will still be produced, most likely by
    early adapters such as Lageder, but there will be less of it. By the law
    of supply and demand, that suggests the best wines of tomorrow will
    cost even more than the ridiculous amounts they fetch today. White wine
    may well disappear from some regions. Climate-sensitive reds such as
    pinot noir are also in trouble. It’s not too late for winemakers to save
    themselves through adaptation. But it’s disconcerting to see so much
    dawdling in an industry with so much incentive to act. If winemakers
    aren’t motivated to adapt to climate change, what businesses will be?

    The answer seems to be very few. Even in the Britain, where the
    government is vigorously championing adaptation, the private sector lags
    in understanding the adaptation imperative, much less implementing it.
    “I bet if I rang up a hundred small businesses in the U.K. and mentioned
    adaptation, 90 of them wouldn’t know what I was talking about,” says
    Gareth Williams, who works with the organization Business in the
    Community, helping firms in northeast England prepare for the storms and
    other extreme weather events that scientists project for the region.
    “When I started this job, I gave a presentation to heads of businesses,”
    said Williams, who spent most of his career in the private sector. “I
    presented the case for adaptation, and in the question-and-answer
    period, one executive said, ‘We’re doing quite a lot on adaptation
    already.’ I said, ‘Oh, what’s that?’ He said, ‘We’re recycling, and
    we’re looking at improving our energy efficiency.’ I thought to myself,
    ‘Oh, my, he really didn’t get it at all. This is going to be a
    struggle.’”

    “Most of us are not very good at recognizing our risks until we are
    hit by them,” explains Chris West, the director of the U.K. government’s
    Climate Impact Program. “People who run companies are no different.”
    Before joining UKCIP in 1999, West had spent most of his career working
    to protect endangered species. Now, the species he is trying to save is
    his own, and the insights of a zoologist turn out to be quite useful.
    Adapting to changing circumstances is, after all, the essence of
    evolution—and of success in the modern economic marketplace. West is
    fond of quoting Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the species that
    survives … nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is
    the most adaptable to change.”

    Related Links:

    EPA scientist warns Atlantic seaboard will be swallowed by rising seas

    Interview with ‘Growing Green’ water steward Mike Benziger

    Cuba’s urban-ag revival offers limited lessons






  • Engineers plan underwater dome to contain Gulf oil spill

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    They’re trying a dome
    because the robots didn’t work. No, really. Damage control for the oil-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is sounding like a bad
    science-fiction movie
    :

    Engineers are crafting a giant underwater dome to help to
    contain an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico after attempts to shut off the leak
    using robotic submarines failed.

    … While the robots continued their efforts one mile down
    and a new rig arrived to drill into the leaking well and plug it in an
    operation that could take months, BP said that its dome should trap the
    escaping oil and funnel it to tanks on the surface.

    The 11 workers missing
    after the oil-rig explosion are presumed dead, and the leaking oil is expected to reach the Louisiana
    coast as early as Saturday. The spill is 48 miles at its widest, 39 miles at
    its longest and has a circumference of 600 miles, according to reports.

    And:

    Louisiana is one month away from opening its inshore
    shrimping season, its crab season is just starting and oyster beds could be
    closed if the oil gets into coastal estuaries.

    As The Wall Street Journal reports,
    this sort of casts a pall over BP’s fantastic quarterly earnings report, which beat
    analysts’ forecasts by 18 percent.

    At the G20 meeting in
    Pittsburgh last fall, President Obama promised to scale back government subsidies to the fossil-fuel industries: “I will work
    with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies so that we can
    better address our climate challenge.”

    The continuing Louisiana
    disaster provides a favorable political climate to make good on that pledge.

    Related Links:

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    Kerry says climate bill is not dead






  • The upside of the Senate climate bill’s troubles

    by John Passacantando

    There is a silver lining to the turmoil over the Senate climate bill.Photo: Pranav Singh via FlickrOver the weekend we got the news that three grim-faced men weren’t going to be able to help on global warming.  The only Republican supporter of the not-yet-unveiled-but-widely-described Senate climate bill, Lindsey Graham, had a new demand.  Not only did he insist that the bill subsidize the building of nuclear power plants and open up our coasts to oil drilling—conditions since met by the White House—he wanted the Democrats to hold off immigration reform so it wouldn’t hurt some Republicans running for Senate.  It’s rumored that he also wanted Caps tickets for the final game on Wednesday evening and a guarantee from the White House that they would beat the Canadiens.

    Weird. But I felt happy.  Which is weirder still. I’ve worked for almost 20 years to stop global warming, and I feel joy when the Senate global warming bill begins to unravel.  How did we get here?

    The bill that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)—aka KGL—keep threatening to introduce is reputed to be more of a polluters’ bill than an environmental bill. Massive new subsidies for the coal, oil, and gas industries, a new trading scheme for Wall Street (this time in derivatives of carbon pollution instead of mortgages), promised CO2 emissions reductions primarily from ungovernable “offsets” in the developing world, and preemption over state efforts to stop global warming or even the EPA’s recently Supreme Court–granted right to do the same.

    There are smart people who say that we need a bill on global warming, any bill, and the rest of the world will start moving too.  But it seems to me that if we pass a fake bill, it won’t be a little first step but rather the last step.  And the Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians are unlikely to be so ignorant as to watch the Senate pass a fake bill and turn around and make real emissions reductions in their own economies.

    But figuring this out isn’t my job. I didn’t join the environmental movement to try and become a master dealmaker. Let’s leave that to the politicians and their staffs. I’m more interested in the people building a powerful swell of public support that politicians eventually have to follow.  Democracy done right means politicians listen to the people, not the coal companies or the oil companies or Goldman Sachs.

    I come from the American tradition that liberated itself from a corrupt king and that now has to liberate itself from corrupt corporate oligarchs.  To do that, we’ll have to organize in every corner of this fair land and peel the grip of the polluters off the levers of power.  But there is one thing we must do first.  The original role of the environmental community is to tell the truth.  Our role is not to design ever more complex legislative schemes that enrich the oligarchs and confuse the public.  The truth is that global warming is bearing down on us and we are not a step closer to solving it than we were 40 years ago.

    And yet there is something that I find hopeful, an alternative bill, though the media pretends it isn’t there.

    The media has been focused on the three men who have been talking about a bill for months while ignoring two women, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who have actually introduced a bill, the CLEAR Act (Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act). With simple, elegant architecture, it auctions the right to pollute to the importers, drillers, and miners of carbon-based fuels that come into the economy.  These costs get passed along to you and me, working like a tax and increasing the price of carbon-based energy so we use less. That’s a good thing. And then it takes most of that revenue and gives a cash payment, every year, to everyone with a Social Security number.

    Top Republican pollster Glen Bolger from Public Opinion Strategies recently polled 1,000 likely voters in five politically moderate to conservative states about their views on climate legislation. According to Bolger, “The CLEAR Act from Cantwell and Collins has the best chance of getting more votes over party lines because people like the concept of less government involvement [and a] tax-cuts-style refund back to the people.” Maybe this bill is a better way to get Republican support than to start giving companies the right to drill off our beaches.

    Related Links:

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    Can good climate legislation pass via reconciliation? [WITH TEACUP PIGS]

    Kerry says climate bill is not dead






  • Tell us your favorite local, sustainable sandwich shops

    by Tom Philpott

    A couple of weeks ago, I penned a long tribute to the sandwich—specifically, locally owned sandwich shops that combine a high degree of cooking skill with a zeal for great ingredients from local farmers and producers.

    To me, these shops represent a nexus that joins skilled cooks, the surrounding farm community, and a broad swath of the local citizenry. They make terrific local food accessible, and keep food dollars circulating within their surrounding communities. And they also make a mean sandwich—no small thing in a world awash in horrible food.

    In my piece, I highlighted Chapel Hill’s path-breaking Sandwhich, Brooklyn’s glorious Bierkraft, and New Orleans’ sublime Cochon Butcher. Now that I’ve revealed to you, food-loving reader, my sandwich obsessions, I want to hear about yours.

    The Grist food section is plotting a slideshow of our nation’s great new-wave sandwich shops—and we want you to send in photos and a short description of your favorite ones.

    What we’re looking for is joints that are a) locally owned—no chains; b) creative; c) zealous about sourcing local ingredients; and d) capable of knocking out consistently and mind-blowingly good sandwiches.

    Here’s what to do. Identify a sandwich shop that meets those criteria. Take a snapshot of your favorite offering from there, and a few more of scenes from the place—you know, a sandwich artisan working her trade; a menu board full of temptations; what have you. Write a short—<300 word—case for why the place rocks. Send it all to me: tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org. (Feel free to use Flickr for the photos.) Deadline: May 7.

    People whose nominations we highlight in the slideshow will get the glory of being published on Grist (believe me, there is no glory on Earth like it); and one of those plastic shopping-bag thingies, the ones that crumple down to a fist-sized ball. Oh yeah, and they say “Grist” on them!

    Don’t just sit there staring slack-jawed. Go find great sandwiches. Hit the bricks!

    Related Links:

    Time for the public to reinvest in food-system infrastructure

    What a D.C. private school can teach us about public-school lunches

    With a bit more cash and lots of ingenuity, school lunches could be much better






  • Can good climate legislation pass via reconciliation? [WITH TEACUP PIGS]

    by David Roberts

    As the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman climate bill teeters on the precipice, some greens are once again pushing for climate legislation to move through the budget reconciliation process, which requires only a 51-vote majority, instead of the standard bill process, which (thanks to absurd filibuster rules) requires a 60-vote supermajority.

    Kate Sheppard has a post making the most salient point: it almost certainly ain’t gonna happen. The Senate voted 67-31 last April to rule it out for climate legislation; the Senate Budget Committee passed a similar amendment last week. Maybe if Graham bails and the KGL process falls apart completely it will revive a reconciliation push, but it’s highly unlikely. That would require political brass balls, and neither the Senate Dem caucus nor Obama has demonstrated any on this issue.

    What about the substance, though? Is a climate bill via reconciliation a good idea on the merits?  As we contemplate these weighty and (my colleagues tell me) deathly boring issues, let us carry along with us some tiny little teacup pigs. OMFG SO CUTE.

    Reconciliation 101

    Reconciliation is widely misunderstood. It’s not an all-purpose procedural trick that allows the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority. It was designed to ease passage of the federal budget, and ever since the famed Byrd Rule, only provisions that have direct budgetary impact can be included in it. The health-care reform bill didn’t pass via reconciliation—it passed with 60 votes in the Senate and was amended via reconciliation. The amendments affected only aspects of the bill that had direct budgetary impact (subsidies, taxes, etc.). The other parts of HCR, like insurance industry reforms, couldn’t have passed via reconciliation, because they aren’t budget-related. (Read this classic post in which Jon Chait basically loses his mind trying to explain this, for the gazillionth time, to political reporters.)

    So: only budget-related items—taxing and spending—can pass via reconciliation. What does this mean for climate legislation?

    Climate through the reconciliation filter

    You can think of good climate policy as a three-legged stool: legislation, regulation, and investment. U.S. elites like to pretend that all regulation is “command and control” and discredited in our enlightened neoliberal age, but neither America nor any other developed democracy behaves that way in practice. Regulations are rules of the road, and most roads need rules. (Energy markets, in particular, are in dire need of both simpler and greener rules.)

    Reconciliation would effectively chop off the regulatory leg of the stool. It would, for instance, rule out at least half the provisions in the Waxman-Markey ACES bill that was passed by the House last summer, most importantly renewable-energy standards (which drive cleantech deployment and innovation) and energy-efficiency standards (which save money and reduce emissions). On the bright side, it would also preclude any rollback of EPA authority or preemption of state climate programs.

    Reconciliation allows for changes to taxes and expenditures. In climate legislation, money can be raised (sticks) and spent (carrots) in a number of ways. It can be raised through a price on carbon: a cap-and-trade system like ACES, a hybrid system like the (rumored) KGL bill, a cap-and-dividend system like the Cantwell-Collins pony, or the much-feted “simple carbon tax.” Despite the heated disputes among proponents of those different systems, they’re more or less equivalent economically.

    Money could also be raised by rolling back existing tax breaks and subsidies to fossil fuels. Solve Climate has an excellent post on how difficult it is to determine exactly what counts as a subsidy, but also the potentially enormous sums involved.

    Money can be spent any number of ways—as free permits under a cap-and-trade system or cash under a carbon tax—on a number of things: clean energy RD&D, dividends to taxpayers, reductions in distortionary taxes, and (most likely!) transition assistance to pay off affected and politically opposed industries.

    It’s clear, then, that in terms of carbon pricing and spending, reconciliation offers quite a bit of flexibility to satisfy industry demands and smooth out regional disparities. In this way it is unlike health-care reform, the structure of which simply couldn’t have worked without the regulatory measures; a climate bill through reconciliation would be incomplete, but a clear improvement over the status quo.

    Two bills?

    The above considerations suggest a possible strategy: pass efficiency and clean-energy standards in a separate bill through the normal committee process, and pass carbon pricing/spending through reconciliation.

    Problem is, it’s not clear that either of those bills could get enough support to pass. Renewable-energy standards have failed many times before in the Senate, and the one that passed through Bingaman’s Energy Committee is weak to the point of useless. Same for its efficiency provisions; for reasons that continue to mystify me, the Senate isn’t that bold on efficiency either.

    Nor is it clear that there are 50 votes in the Senate for a climate pricing system. Check out Brad Johnson’s compendium of silly climate-related amendments that have found majority support in the Senate, including a couple with the absurd stricture that no climate policy raise electricity or gasoline prices. Even now in E&E’s running compendium of Senate climate votes [PDF], there are only 39 in the “yes” or “probably yes” category.

    This is to say nothing of the simple fact that it’s incredibly difficult to get any bill going in the Senate, much less two. The order could screw things up too: Pushing a bill through reconciliation first could so exacerbate partisan tensions as to make passage of a separate energy bill impossible. Passing an energy bill first could further sap the already tenuous political will to price carbon.

    To sum up

    There is a path to strong climate policy that travels through reconciliation. But for it to succeed would require a strong, coordinated push from Senate Democrats, in concert with the White House and at considerable political risk, for bills that likely wouldn’t be much stronger than what KGL proposes.

    If there were political will for such a push, on either end of Pennsylvania Ave., it would be swinging behind the existing bill. There are some signs of life, but as yet nothing of the intensity that will be required to secure victory against long odds. Fecklessness, it seems, rules the day, and reconciliation is not a path for the feckless.

    In short, reconciliation—like Cantwell-Collins, like the carbon tax, like the energy-only bill, like so many others that have come and gone in this debate—is another pony, gamboling just out of reach, enticing largely because it it’s hypothetical, serving mostly to distract attention from the haggard pack horse that is, for all her faults and infirmities, the only ride we’ve really got. 

    Related Links:

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    The upside of the Senate climate bill’s troubles

    Kerry says climate bill is not dead






  • Kerry says climate bill is not dead

    by Agence France-Presse

    WASHINGTON—Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said late Monday that efforts to craft sweeping, comprehensive legislation to combat climate change were still “very much alive.”

    “We’re still pushing, we’re still talking, we’re still fighting, it’s very much alive—and I won’t quit,” Kerry said in a post on Talking Points Memo.

    His comments came after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who had been working on the bill with Kerry and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), backed away from it in protest over a decision by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to move first on an immigration bill.

    “It’s practically a rite of passage. No serious legislation ever makes it very far in Congress before it’s declared dead—at least once, sometimes two or three times,” Kerry said.

    Kerry praised Graham for having “invested enormous amounts of time” in the effort to do “the hard, grinding work” on the compromise legislation.

    The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill last year, creating a cap-and-trade program that would set a limit on greenhouse-gas emissions and create a market for trading pollution rights.

    The Senate bill was to have set a price on carbon pollution and promoted offshore oil drilling, new nuclear plants, and development of renewable energy sources and other “clean” technologies to wean the United States off oil imports.

    Related Links:

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    Engineers plan underwater dome to contain Gulf oil spill






  • Jesus and climate change: The journey of evangelical leader Rich Cizik

    by Paul Rogat Loeb

    Rich Cizik

    Photo: National Association of Evangelicals

    As vice president for governmental affairs at
    the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Rich Cizik represented 4,500
    congregations serving 30 million members. Considering himself a “Reagan
    conservative” and a strong initial supporter of George W. Bush, Cizik had
    been with the organization since 1980, serving as its key advocate before
    Congress, the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court on issues like opposition
    to abortion and gay marriage. During the Clinton era, he had begun to expand
    the organization’s agenda by tackling such issues as human trafficking and
    global poverty, working with groups across the political aisle. Later he
    convinced the organization to take a stand against torture.

    But he thought little about climate change until 2002, when he attended a
    conference on the subject and heard a leading British climate scientist, Sir
    James Houghton, who was also a prominent evangelical. “You could only call
    the process a conversion,” Cizik said. “I reluctantly went to the
    conference, saying, ‘I’ll go, but don’t
    expect me to be signing on to any statements.’ Then, for three days in Oxford,
    England, Houghton walked us through the science and our biblical responsibility.
    He talked about droughts, shrinking ice caps, increasing hurricane intensity,
    temperatures tracked for millennia through ice-core data. He made clear that
    you could believe in the science and remain a faithful biblical Christian. All
    I can say is that my heart was changed. For years I’d thought, ‘Well, one side
    says this, the other side says that. There’s no reason to get involved.’ But
    the science has become too compelling. I could no longer sit on the sidelines.
    I didn’t want to be like the evangelicals who avoided getting involved during
    the civil rights movement and in the process discredited the gospel and
    themselves.”

    One day during the conference, Houghton took Cizik on a walk in the gardens
    of Blenheim Palace, Winston Churchill’s ancestral home. It was a lovely day,
    sunny and bright. Houghton said, “Richard, if God has convinced you of the
    reality of the science and the Scriptures on the subject, then you must speak out.”

    “Let me think about it,” Cizik responded. He knew he’d meet
    resistance from his colleagues and board. But Houghton convinced him that the
    world couldn’t solve the issue without serious American participation, and that
    the Republican Party was the major political force blocking action in the
    United States (in contrast to Europe, where conservative parties had helped
    take the lead on the issue). “As evangelicals, we’re 40 percent of the
    Republican base, so if we could convince the evangelical community to speak
    out, it could make the key difference,” Cizik said. American evangelicals,
    Houghton told him, might literally hold the fate of the planet in their hands.

    After leaving the conference, Cizik began reading and learning. Flying over
    the Sahara, he got a sense of the “tens of thousands of acres that are
    lost to climate-related desertification each year,” which in turn leads to
    major refugee migrations and potential wars over water. He coordinated a
    retreat with key evangelical leaders, like Rick Warren, and major scientists,
    like Houghton and Harvard’s E.O. Wilson. Then he took a similar group to Alaska
    to witness the melting glaciers and permafrost, the disruption of native
    communities, the spruce trees dying because the bark beetles now survived the
    warmer winters. They visited Shishmaref, a native village that is being forced to
    relocate because the permafrost has crumbled beneath it and the sea ice that
    once served as a storm buffer is gone. “Our first night there, we saw a
    lunar eclipse, shooting stars, and the Northern Lights.” It reminded him
    of the phrase in the psalm, “Creation pours forth its praise to its
    creator … The heavens give witness to
    God’s glory.”

    His Alaska group, said Cizik, “included those who believe life on earth
    was created by God, and those who believe it evolved over three and a half
    billion years. What became obvious to both groups is that this earth is sacred
    and that we ought to protect it. God isn’t going to ask you how he created the
    earth. He already knows. He’s going to ask, ‘What did you do with what I
    created?’ If we’re leaving a footprint that destroys the earth, we’ve failed to
    be good stewards.”

    The more Cizik learned, the more it challenged him to “treat caring for
    God’s creation as a moral principle,” and to continue enlisting others. In
    2004, Cizik convinced the NAE to release a paper called “For the Health of
    the Nation,” which urged its members to live in conformity with
    sustainable principles, talked of “creation care,” and stated,
    “Because clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to
    public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its
    citizens from the effects of environmental degradation.” Two years later,
    he helped organize the Evangelical Climate Initiative,
    a major statement from 86 key evangelical leaders, including major megachurch
    pastors like Warren, the presidents of 39 Christian colleges, and the national
    commander of the Salvation Army. The statement described climate change as an
    urgent moral issue for Christians and called for the government to act on it.

    Cizik also joined James Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network in
    carrying a placard to a pro-life rally that said, “Stop Mercury Poisoning
    of the Unborn,” and handing out fliers
    explaining that most of the birth-defect-producing
    mercury comes from coal-burning power plants. “If you care about the
    sanctity of human life,” he said, “then care about whether people
    live desperate lives and care about the mercury from power plants.”

    As Cizik expected, not everyone was happy with his taking environmental
    stands. “I had people on my board who said, ‘Don’t touch the issue. If you
    do, we’ll make your life very difficult.’” Twenty-two evangelical leaders
    signed a letter urging the NAE not to take a position on global climate change.
    James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and major conservative activists
    like Heritage Foundation founder Paul Weyrich and the Family Research Council’s
    Gary Bauer called for Cizik’s firing.

    Some of this Cizik attributed to “simple ignorance of the science”
    and some to “bad theology—people who believe the earth is going to be
    destroyed anyway, so why bother.” But he also wondered how much came from
    people “afraid they’ll lose their power, influence, capacity to raise
    money, what they perceive to be their priorities. They’re afraid they’ll offend
    political allies.”

    But Cizik and the others persisted. “As a biblical Christian,” he
    said, “I agree with St. Francis that every square inch on Earth belongs to
    Christ. If we don’t pay attention to global climate change, it’s pretty obvious
    that tens and or even hundreds of millions of people are going to die. If you
    have a major sea-level rise, then Bangladesh
    becomes uninhabitable. Where do you put its 100 million people? Do you put them
    in India? In China? They’d have no place to go. Britain’s Christian Aid talks
    of climate change impacting one billion people by mid-century, with drought,
    floods, disease, and malnutrition. I’ve
    asked African-American leaders whether, as a
    white man, I can call climate change ‘the civil rights issue of the 21st
    century.’ Unanimously they say, ‘You not
    only can, but you must.’”

    Cizik believed he could still preach the gospel while also talking about
    these kinds of issues. “You need both. To go to bed at night and say that over
    a billion people live on a dollar a day and can’t go to bed themselves with a
    full stomach, can you live as a Christian happily in your suburban home,
    driving your SUV? Of course you can’t. Not as a real Christian. And if you
    happen to be a liberal, conservative, or
    centrist, I don’t care. The gospel has priority over politics.”

    Although Cizik and his allies never quite convinced the NAE to take an
    official stand on climate change, and he
    eventually got forced out
    after telling radio interviewer Terry
    Gross that he was beginning to rethink his opposition to gay civil unions, the
    organization reaffirmed the moral importance of “creation care,” a
    core perspective that encouraged further dialogue. And Cizik has gone on to
    start an organization, The New Evangelicals,
    devoted to issues like poverty and environmental engagement. He called his
    fellow evangelicals “a slow-moving earthquake. They don’t quite understand
    themselves how they’re changing, but they are.”

    “The issue shook my theology to its core,” Cizik told me. “It
    changed me as much as my being born again 30
    years before. This threatens the whole planet, so it raises a basic issue of who
    we are as people. Climate change isn’t just a scientific question. It’s a
    moral, a religious, a cosmological question. It involves everything we are and
    what we have a right to do.”

    This
    piece is adapted from the wholly updated new edition of Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in
    Challenging Times
    by Paul Rogat Loeb. Copyright
    © 2010 by the author and reprinted by permission of St. Martin’s Griffin.

    Related Links:

    Have Jesus’ disciples been overeating?

    PETA on one side, FOX on the other … now that’s a conundrum

    Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change






  • Australia delays carbon-trading scheme

    by Agence France-Presse

    SYDNEY – On Tuesday, Australia shelved plans for a carbon-trading system to cut greenhouse-gas emissions until at least 2013, blaming the slow pace of global action and an obstructive opposition.

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has described climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” said plans for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) were on hold after they failed to pass through parliament.

    “The opposition decided to backflip on its historical commitment to bring in a CPRS and there has been slow progress in the realization of global action on climate change,” Rudd told reporters in Sydney. “These two factors together inevitably mean that the implementation of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia will be delayed.”

    The carbon-trading legislation was rejected for the second time in December when it failed to pass through the Senate, the upper house of Australia’s parliament, where several independent members hold the balance of power.

    Rudd, who is expected to call an election this year, said Australia would still meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, which are blamed for global warming, by at least 5 percent of 2000 levels by 2020.

    “Climate change remains a fundamental economic and environmental and moral challenge for all Australians, and for all peoples of the world. That just doesn’t go away,” he said.

    But the government’s plans to introduce an emissions-tradings scheme, which would have been phased in from July 2011, were thwarted when the conservative opposition reneged on its agreement to back the deal, he said.

    Rudd said he still believed an emissions-trading scheme was the most effective and least expensive way of acting on climate change, but he would wait until the end of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period in late 2012.

    The Greens slammed the delay, saying the government lacked political will. “Climate change is real. It is stalking Australia. It is threatening the Great Barrier Reef,” Greens Sen. Bob Brown said.

    The conservative opposition, which has described the carbon-trading scheme as “a great big new tax on everything,” said it was skeptical of the government’s new position. “It is a pea-and-thimble game because what is absolutely clear is that last year’s greatest moral challenge has become this year’s inconvenience,” opposition environment spokesperson Greg Hunt said.

    Rudd, a pro-green prime minister who played a prominent role at the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen last year, presides over a country that remains the world’s worst per capita polluter.

    Related Links:

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    Engineers plan underwater dome to contain Gulf oil spill






  • The new U.N. climate chief should have a strong understanding of women’s issues

    by Negash Teklu

    Photos: angela7dreams via FlickrWe have a critical opportunity right now to make sure
    the next U.N. climate chief will serve the needs of the global community of
    women, and we need to seize it.

    With Yvo de Boer stepping down as executive secretary
    of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, U.N. Secretary-General Ban
    Ki-moon will be appointing a replacement. 
    The role of the executive secretary is critical to achieving a fair,
    ambitious, and binding climate agreement, and a strong successor to de Boer is
    absolutely essential for Cancun and beyond.

    What will make for a strong UNFCCC executive secretary?
    The Climate Action Network has issued
    a letter
    articulating important qualifications, which include political
    leadership, experience with negotiations, commitment to civil society, and a
    thorough understanding of the challenges of development in the Global South.

    As leaders of organizations working at the forefront
    of environmental and women’s issues in the Global South, we’d like to add
    another qualification to that list: an understanding of the full range of
    gender issues, including access to reproductive health and family planning.

    Women make up half of the world’s population and 70
    percent of the world’s poor, produce up to 80 percent of agricultural products
    in places like sub-Saharan Africa, and stand to face the brunt of climate
    change.

    Three female candidates are rumored to be under consideration:  Maria Fernanda
    Espinoza
    from Ecuador, Elizabeth
    Thompson
    from Barbados, and Christiana
    Figueres
    from Costa Rica. These women occupy distinct and noteworthy
    positions within the larger environmental and climate diplomatic circles.  Espinoza has held the post of minister for foreign affairs, and
    is the current Ecuadorian representative to the U.N.  Thompson has a
    well-known reputation for excellence in diplomacy, having led the Barbados
    governmental delegation to Kyoto.  Figueres
    is a formidable negotiator on climate change and an expert on carbon
    markets.

    Certainly we all know from the U.S. experience with
    Sarah Palin that being a woman does not a feminist make. On the other hand,
    ensuring gender balance, tracking the number of female elected officials, and actively
    engaging women at all levels of policy making are all standard and
    well-accepted means of measuring an institution’s ability to bring a balanced perspective
    to its deliberations. Do we wish we lived in world free of such measures and
    quotas? Perhaps, but the reality is that marginalized perspectives tend to be,
    well, just that-marginalized-so our advocacy on this front is not yet finished
    business.

    With the UNFCCC soon to enter its third decade, it is long overdue for
    Ban Ki-moon to live up to his own challenge to world governments to give a “greater say to
    women in addressing the climate challenge
    .”  In selecting a leader who will be capable of
    crafting an effective and fair international agreement, the secretary-general
    must seek a candidate with a track record demonstrating a nuanced understanding
    of the gendered aspects of climate change challenges and solutions.  It is time that the U.N. pay more than lip
    service to the notion that women
    are the agents of change
    .

    ——————-

    Suzanne Ehlers
    is the interim president of Population
    Action International
    .

    Negash Teklu is executive
    director of Ethiopia’s Consortium
    for Integration of Population, Health, and Environment
    .

    Rosemarie
    Muganda-Onyando is the director of the Centre for the Study of
    Adolescence in Kenya
    .

    Wasim Zaman is the executive director of International Council on Management of
    Population Programme
    , Selangor, Malaysia.

    Related Links:

    Bolivia’s Morales slams capitalists for causing global warming

    U.N. climate talks in Bonn wrap up after fresh fights

    U.N. climate talks in Bonn are off to a rocky start






  • Interview with ‘Growing Green’ water steward Mike Benziger

    by Tom Philpott

    An
    April 13, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced the four winners of its second annual
    “Growing Green” awards, which honor leaders in the sustainable-food
    world in four categories: “thought leader,” “producer,”
    business leader,” and “water steward.” I interviewed
    “thought leader” Fred Kirschenmann here and “business leader” Karl Kupers of Shepherd’s Grain here. Now I turn my attention to Mike Benziger, who brought home
    the “water steward” prize for his work at Benziger Family Winery.

    ——————-

    Mike Benziger on the family farm. When Mike Benziger and his family began growing grapes and
    making wine in 1970s-era Sonoma County, the prevailing agricultural style could be described as
    “scorched earth.” Agrichemical concoctions fed the vines, killed the pests, and flattened
    the weeds; plentiful well water provided easy irrigation.

    But such practices not only kill soil, they also deaden
    wine. Over time, the Benzigers began to rethink modern viticulture. One motivation was improving the product, making it stand out out from the gusher of wine
    coming out of Sonoma. Another was the sinking water table on Sonoma
    Mountain, where the family keeps its vineyards. Faced with surging water costs,
    the family began searching for new farming methods that didn’t treat water as a
    cheap and easy resource. Thus started an odyssey that inspired the family to
    convert its Sonoma property to biodynamic growing practices in the
    mid-1990s—and that won Mike Benziger recognition from the NRDC as a “water
    steward.” I caught up with Mike last week via phone.

    Q. Tell
    us about how Benziger saves water.

    A. It
    all started because we were running out of water—our wells were dropping.
    Necessity really was the mother of invention. We’re located on Sonoma Mountain,
    and water recharge was not happening anywhere near as fast as we were using
    the water. The bottom line in California is there’s probably not going to be
    enough water to go around.

    So,
    what are we going to do to address that? You throw climate change into that mix,
    and the problem gets that much more critical. There’s a saying in the wine
    business: wine is for loving, but water is for fighting. But it turns out that
    when you use significantly less water in the field, you can actually raise the quality
    of wine. There’s not a tradeoff between water use and wine quality. Of course,
    there are economic benefits, too—one of the biggest costs we incur at
    our facility is for pumping water out of the ground.

    So
    we looked to the vineyard first. Far and away, our growing practices used the
    most significant quantities of water. So, by designing vineyards that needed
    less water, by not planting in areas that had an excess demand for water, and
    by planting plants that were smaller, by planting plants that were less
    thirsty, by planting plants that had rootstalks that went deeper and pulled
    water from lower soil depth, we saved a lot of water.

    And
    we quickly found that by irrigating less and using less inputs, our grapes,
    olives, and other products were more concentrated in flavor, higher in quality,
    and had a longer shelf life to it.

    Q. Benziger
    is well-known in the industry for being certified biodynamic. Talk about the relationship between
    biodynamic growing practices and water conservation.

    A. When
    we first moved into our property in 1980, we hired the best advisors. And they
    told us, “Hey, you better get rid of all of the natural things in your
    vineyards and push them out to the other side of the fence. We don’t want any
    competition in your vineyards. Let’s get rid of all the insects, let’s get rid
    of all the weeds, let’s get rid of all the birds. We need to have this under
    control. Only vines should be in a vineyard area.”

    Over
    time, we did a pretty good job of killing everything. One day, we went outside
    and we didn’t hear a peep: we didn’t see an insect, we didn’t hear a bird, our
    soils were eroding because they were dead, and quite frankly, our wines were
    hit and miss. And that’s when we knew we needed to look for some farming practices
    that maybe treated the land with a little bit more respect.

    In
    about 1994-95, we started to look around for different farming practices.
    Biodynamic farming resonated with us because it did two things: it regenerated
    the land, meaning it built biological capital, and it individualized our
    product. And that was the thing that really, really attracted us. By farming
    this way, and by looking at biodynamics as a closed system of agriculture, we
    were able to individualize—make our property more distinctive over time.

    Biodynamics
    means recycling all the products within your property, and reducing the use of
    imported inputs … including water. Over time, our philosophy came to never ever
    feed the vine, but to only take care of the soil. When you feed the vine, when
    the food for the vine is put on the surface of the soil and then dripped in
    with an irrigation system, the roots stay right where the food is, which is
    right in the first eighteen inches. If we take care of the soil, the roots go
    deeper to find the nutrients the plant needs—the nutrients aren’t all there at
    the surface. The goal is to get the roots to explore the entire soil profile
    and to eventually get down to where more permanent sources of water are, which
    in our case, tend to be down below six to eight feet. Once we can tap into
    that, then we can really delay our irrigations and save hundreds of thousands
    of gallons of water.

    When
    the roots reach the lower depths, we can really tap into what I call the Holy
    Grail: and that is in being able to showcase what is called in the wine
    business the terroir of the property …
    the sense of place, the sense that the wine came from somewhere
    specific.

    Q. Animals are integral to biodynamic farming. What kind of animals
    are on your farm?

    A. In
    biodynamic farming, you try to eliminate the use of inputs by enabling natural
    systems, through use of  plants and
    animals. We use plants as habitat areas to bring in good insects that eat the
    bad bugs, which eliminate the need for pesticides, and we bring in the
    caretakers of soil biology and that eliminates the need for fertilizer.

    So
    we have cows, which provide the manures for our compost, and sheep, which are
    out in the vineyards every day during the fall, winter, and the early part of
    spring. With every step, sheep do three things: they eat, they shit, and they
    till. They’re pretty cool animals and they really invigorate the soil biology
    by keeping the grasses down low, that way we don’t have to bring our machinery
    in early when compaction is a problem. They also provide the ability to turn
    their manures into grasses under, so that they break down and they keep the
    soil biology humming. They also put little dents, not too many, but little
    dents in the soil that act to hold water and help to recharge the soil aquifer
    faster. The other thing they do, which is really important, is they take care
    of disease protection by turning under with their paws all the litter that’s
    left over from last year that usually has mildew and other bacteria in it; they
    turn it under and the soil bacteria take care of it right away.

    Virtually
    all farms had animals for 10,000 years. They’ve been pushed off most farms over
    the last hundred years because we decided that monocrops are more efficient.
    But we really didn’t look hard enough to see the real reasons why our ancestors
    were using animals

    Q. What
    else are you doing to reduce water use in the winemaking process?

    A. We’ve
    constructed wetlands that recycle 2-3 million gallons of water a year. All of
    the winery waste water and some of the grey water on our facility is captured
    in a pond and then, by gravity, it’s recycled through this large wetlands that
    acts as a kidney that cleans the water to an incredibly high level—to where it
    looks good enough to drink. That’s the water that we then use for landscaping,
    and we then use for irrigation. It’s used twice.

    In
    the actual winemaking process, we recently invested in what’s called
    “all-vibration technology.” We’ve eliminated all belts and all screws. And
    that right there, eliminated, I think, 18-20 percent of the water use for harvest last
    year alone, just converting out of belts and screws to these very
    easy-to-clean, very efficient vibration tables. They clean up almost by
    themselves.

    Then
    there’s cleaning wine barrels. You can imagine how hard it is to clean a
    60-gallon barrel and get it all clean on the inside when there’s only a little
    hole to work through. In the past, we used up to 25 gallons per barrel. But
    with the new technologies that we’ve invested in, which is based on steam,
    we’ve been able to get that to below 5 gallons per barrel.

    Q. Benziger
    is obviously known most for its wine—what else is grown on your Sonoma Mountain land?

    A. Yeah,
    we grow about 30 different types of vegetables and we make olive oil and we
    make honey. We have about 100 lamb. We
    sell all of our olive oil in the tasting room, then we supply local
    restaurants
    with vegetables and beef. We’re also trying to make on a regular basis
    what I call an estate meal, which is a meal made entirely off the property of
    the lamb or the beef or the chicken with all the vegetables that we grow, with
    the olive oil and the honey, tasted alongside the wines that are made right
    there in that system, and to see if there’s an overlap or a crossover in the
    flavors or the profiles or the textures of the wine or the olives oil or even
    the veggies.

    Q. Sounds
    like an old-school diversified Mediterranean farm—olive groves, vineyards,
    vegetables, meat, all growing right on top of each other.

    A. Our
    property is 85 acres and less than 40 of it are in grapes. Then the other 35 or
    40 are the biological support system for the grapes. The grapes are the lead
    character in the play. A lot of the time, [all the supporting actors] makes the lead character
    interesting. I don’t want to give the impression we think we’re perfect in
    terms of sustainability—we can always do better! But it turns out that by
    doing things like conserving water and improving soil health, we make better
    wine. So we’re committed.

    Q. Please
    recommend a few relatively inexpensive examples of your wines. Nothing too fancy—I work at Grist!

    A. First,
    I’d try the 2009 Benziger Sauvignon Blanc –– that’s just hitting the markets right now. Then I would recommend the 2006
    Benziger Sonoma Country Cabernet Sauvignon
    .
    And then we have another one called Signiterra that’s a blend of Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon that is a biodynamic property
    in transition—that is an awesome wine. Those
    would be the three that I would recommend.

    Related Links:

    Cuba’s urban-ag revival offers limited lessons

    Interview with ‘Growing Green’ business leader Karl Kupers

    Fred Kirschenmann, winner of NRDC’s Growing Green “Thought Leader” award






  • World’s first taxis with easily swapped batteries hit Tokyo

    by Agence France-Presse

    Electric taxi in Tokyo.Photo: Better PlaceTOKYO—The world’s first taxis with easily replaceable batteries hit the streets of the Japanese capital Monday in a government-funded experiment.

    The purpose-built cars that can run on easily swapped batteries—rather than wait to be recharged or switch to other fuels—were launched in Tokyo by Japan’s energy agency.

    Three cars based on the Nissan Dualis will operate as normal taxis on the city’s streets during the 90-day experiment, a joint project with Better Place, a U.S. firm specializing in providing electric vehicle infrastructure.

    “Tokyo can become the capital of electric vehicles,” said Kiyotaka Fujii, president of the Japanese unit of Better Place.

    Ordinary Tokyo taxis can clock up as many as 185 miles a day, the company says, and the city is by far the world’s largest taxi market with 60,000 cabs—more than New York, Paris, and London combined.

    While taxis represent only 2 percent of all passenger vehicles in Tokyo, they emit about 20 percent of all carbon dioxide from vehicles.

    “By building a good business model, we believe this technology can have a significant impact on the economy and society,” said Japanese energy agency official Minoru Nakamura.

    Related Links:

    Oil rig leak and the week in fossil-fuel industry disasters

    Rooftop farming and beekeeping boom in New York

    ‘Green tea party’ closes out U.S. Earth Day celebrations






  • Smart cap-and-trade will boost growth, create 2.8 million jobs, and cut carbon pollution

    by Brad Johnson

    Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

    A new macroeconomic analysis of green economic policies finds that cutting global warming pollution will make the economy grow faster. The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), building upon analysis they did of state-level climate plans for the National Governors Association, analyzed the economic and environmental impact of legislation in line with the planned Kerry-Graham-Lieberman framework. As long as state-level policies are boosted instead of pre-empted, CCS found that previous economic analyses by federal agencies and industry groups are wrong. This CCS analysis finds that instead of slowing the economy, household wealth and jobs will grow faster in a green economy. Carbon limits and efficiency-focused policies would have a net positive employment impact of 2.8 million jobs and expand the economy by $154.7 billion by 2020, while U.S. emissions are cut to 27 percent below 1990 levels — if strong standards are set:

    The modeled job creation is consistent with the findings of Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, which used an input-output model to find that a green economy would create 1.7 million new jobs. The center looked at three different policy scenarios, using the industry-standard REMI Policy Insight PI+ macroeconomic model:

    – Strong local, state and federal implementation of green economic policies like green building codes and smart growth

    – These strong policies combined with a federal cap-and-trade system and coupled fuel fee to guarantee emissions reductions of 27 percent below 1990 levels by 2010

    – Scaled-back implementation of the policies and cap-and-trade system in line with President Obama’s goal of six percent below 1990 levels, similar to the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill soon to be considered

    The cap-and-trade system modeled uses full auction of permits and 75 percent of proceeds going directly back to consumers and 25 percent going to technology investments. No proceeds are dedicated to deficit reduction, as none is needed — a faster-growing economy will increase other tax receipts.

    In every single scenario, policies that cut waste and save money by eliminating market failures predominate, making the U.S. economy a more efficient free market and accelerating job growth and household wealth. The report finds that stronger environmental targets and standards deliver greater economic benefits — even if the tremendous benefits of reducing pollution have for health and environmental costs are ignored.

    The 23 recommended climate strategies range the gamut from agriculture, energy supply, electricity use, to transportation. These strategies — most of which save money — combined can achieve major carbon pollution reductions:

    This is what true all-of-the-above energy policy looks like. The suite of recommended policies coming from the consultants to the Center for Climate Strategies report — the stakeholders in local and state governments, businesses, and energy users — must be taken as a top priority, even if they don’t have an army of lobbyists to promote this green economic agenda. The current level of ambition in Washington is not only insufficient to mitigate the damages of global warming, it is leaving hundreds of thousands of jobs on the table.

    Related Links:

    Federal climate policy should preempt state and regional initiatives

    This Earth Day, it’s about Hip Hop and Hard Hats

    There are reasons to be pessimistic about climate legislation






  • Not aging fast enough? Drink a soda!

    by Tom Laskawy

    American as apple pie. But how bad for us is soda?Hoo boy. The American Beverage Association isn’t going to like this news one bit. Food companies now add significant amounts of phosphates to soda and other processed foods. And now researchers have found evidence that phosphates may accelerate aging (via Science Daily):

    High phosphate levels may also increase the prevalence and severity of age-related complications, such as chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular calcification, and can also induce severe muscle and skin atrophy.

    “Humans need a healthy diet and keeping the balance of phosphate in the diet may be important for a healthy life and longevity,” said M. Shawkat Razzaque, M.D., Ph.D., from the Department of Medicine, Infection and Immunity at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. “Avoid phosphate toxicity and enjoy a healthy life.”

    “Soda is the caffeine delivery vehicle of choice for millions of people worldwide, but comes with phosphorous as a passenger” said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the FASEB Journal. “This research suggests that our phosphorous balance influences the aging process, so don’t tip it.”

    This has nothing to do with sweeteners, food coloring or any other previously established badness associated with soda and processed food—it’s a “new and improved” risk.

    And what, pray tell, are these phosphates doing there in the first place? According to other scientists, food companies starting adding them at high levels only in the last 20 years:

    …[W]hile a moderate level of phosphate plays an essential role in living organisms, the rapidly increasing use of phosphates as a food additive has resulted in significantly higher levels in average daily diets. Phosphates are added to many food products to increase water retention and improve food texture.

    “In the 1990s, phosphorous-containing food additives contributed an estimated 470 mg per day to the average daily adult diet,” he said. “However, phosphates are currently being added much more frequently to a large number of processed foods, including meats, cheeses, beverages, and bakery products. As a result, depending on individual food choices, phosphorous intake could be increased by as much as 1000 mg per day.”

    “Increase water retention and improve food texture”?! That’s worth shaving years off our lives for sure! We’re all lab rats now.

     

    Related Links:

    Ask Umbra on fertility awareness, grilling, and Earth Day pledges

    Scientists show ‘growing’ fuel is waste of energy

    Ask Umbra’s Earth Day book giveaway