Switchboard, from NRDC › Peter Miller's Blog

Sulfur emissions more important than CO2

2009-02-13T01:55:44Z

The headline reads: "Sulfur emissions more important than CO2 in warming, scientist says."

Apparently, a retired USGS geologist has determined that sulfur is primarily responsible for climate change rather than carbon dioxide. According to the story in Greenwire, Peter Ward of Jackson Hole, Wyoming has correlated atmospheric concentrations of sulfur (based on ice core data) with global temperatures and concluded that sulfur dioxide is more important than carbon dioxide in driving global temperature.

I don't subscribe to the journal Thin Solid Films where it will be published (although I love the title) and the article hasn't been published yet in any case, but I think this is a great example of bad reporting.

The first thing you learn in a statistics class is that correlation is not causation. In order for this analysis to hold up, Ward has got to show a mechanism whereby atmospheric sulfur increases temperature. He's also got to show that it's the sulfur causing the temperature rise, rather than something else that is correlated with the sulfur, e.g. black carbon emissions from the same volcanoes that emitted the sulfur. Even if it turns out that, contrary to the existing understanding of atmospheric chemistry, sulfur dioxide is a potent GHG, that doesn't negate the research showing CO2 is a potent GHG.

As I said, I haven't read the paper, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Ward is wrong. Not that I fault him for doing his research and coming up with an innovative hypotheses that runs contrary to accepted science. The problem isn't the blind canyons scientists often find themselves in, but reporters who are willing to run with any man bites dog story they can find.

Meeting our environmental responsibilities

2009-01-22T00:38:49Z

I recently had the opportunity to make a brief presentation to the California State Assembly Democratic caucus. I was asked to be on a panel discussing proposed legislation to increase California's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 35%. Since many of the Assemblymembers had never served in the Assembly and typically knew little about California's history of leadership on energy policy, I thought it would be useful to offer a longer-term perspective on this initiative. Here's what I had to say:

Thank you all for the opportunity to be with you today. As a native of his Assembly district -- St. Joseph's hospital in Burbank -- I particularly want to thank Assemblymember Krekorian for the invitation.

Understandably, with the economic crisis, we are all intently focused on the immediate future. Rightly so. This is the beginning of what will be an ... interesting legislative session and a busy one.

But, since it is still just early January, I want to ask you to pause and take a step back for a moment. With your permission, with the 5 minutes I've been allotted, I want to try to offer a long-term perspective, such as I can, on the Renewable Portfolilo Standard legislation - AB64 - that is before us this morning.

In 1974, the Legislature passed, and Governor Reagan signed, the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act. Charles Warren of Warren-Alquist served in the Assembly. I was in high school.

The Warren-Alquist Act grew out of the battle over power plant siting. The first oil crisis was in 1973 and the utilities wanted to build nuclear power plants up and down the coast. Meanwhile environmental activists were doing whatever they could to block the utilities.

The Warren-Alquist Act marked an historic compromise between the utilities and environmentalists. Basically, the utilities agreed to support a process by which the need for new power plants would be tested against opportunities to reduce the demand for energy and renewable resources would be encouraged and supported. In exchange, power plant citing would be facilitated by a centralized processs at a new agency, now known as the Energy Commission, still in that "freezing cold in the winter building" up at 9th and P.

The passage of the Warren Alquist Act also marked the beginning of a decision by this state to exercise national leadership on energy policy. Since then, California has led the nation and, to a significant degree, the world. Since the mid-70s, per capita electricity consumption in California has remained flat, while it increased by 60% for the U.S. as a whole. The electricity consumption of a new refrigerator has dropped by 2/3, as a result of appliance standards adopted over at 9th and P. And California was one of the first states to adopt an RPS. We now have in place one of the most ambitious RPS policies in the nation - 20% of our electricity from renewable resources by 2010.

I started working for NRDC in 1984. While energy issues have momentarily captured the attention of federal policymakers over the years, here in California we've had an energy policy on the books and in the field for over 30 years. We have progressive utilities, a highly supportive populace, and the best techological innovation infrastructure on the planet. You've probably noticed that the State is also rife with environmentalists. Which brings us to the present day.

Given the cavalcade of events and the financial mayhem in the world today, it's difficult to take your eyes off your Blackberry long enough to look much beyond the latest crisis. But when you do, I believe that it's abundantly apparent that bold policy on renewable energy is a key part of the solution to our climate crisis, our energy security crisis, and to our economic crisis.

We have an historic opportunity before us, bringing to bear our experience and the public resources we've developed over 30 years, to exercise global leadership in order to build a cleaner, a safer, and a more prosperous future for our state, for our country and for our world. We won't agree on everything. Between the utilities, the renewable developers, the local communities and the environmentalists no one is going to be totally happy. But we are all commited to working towards the same end. With your leadership you can -- and you should -- pass a 35% RPS this year. By doing so, we can make an enormous difference.

Thank you.

Rumor Mongering at the Global Climate Summit

2008-11-20T00:37:14Z

I've seen a couple of incorrect and misleading news reports about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed last night at this conference. I want to comment on this rumor since it seems to be gaining momentum. These reports claim that the MOU would allow international forest offsets to be used to meet compliance obligations under California's AB32 program.

I've got a copy of the MOU and that is absolutely untrue. The MOU generally commits the signatories to coordinate efforts and promote collaboration with the goal of reducing deforestation and increasing sequestration of forest carbon. As part of that effort, the parties have agreed to collaborate on the development of rules to ensure that forest projects are real, measureable, verifiable, and permanent at the same level of stringency as required by the California Air Resources Board.

There is no agreement that such reductions will be accepted under AB32 nor could there be. The California Air Resources Board is currently managing an extensive multi-year public process to implement AB32. Any and all decisions about how entities will comply with their emission reduction obligations will be made through that public process.

Addressing Deforestation at Global Climate Summit

2008-11-20T00:23:56Z

Last night the governors of five U.S. states along with governors from a number of Brazilian and Indonesian states signed an agreement to work together to reduce emissions from tropical deforestation and degradation. It was a feel good photo op moment with leaders from around the world agreeing to work together, but there is some real political tension underlying that agreement.

Here's the problem: There is lots of skepticism about international forest offsets and much of this concern is justified. In order to incorporate emission reductions from reduced deforestation, we need to be convinced that those reductions are real and lasting.

That's not easy to do. The tropical forests in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are both vast and remote. In many cases, legal frameworks are poorly developed and inadequately enforced. There are conflicts between indigenous peoples and migrants both of whom are understandably more focused on feeding their families than protecting the global climate. Powerful private companies often overrule or control local governments.

Even in the best of circumstances, these efforts require determination of a baseline that defines what would have otherwise occurred. But defining a credible baseline is always difficult, and particularly so for regions afflicted with political instability and illegal logging. Similarly, adoption of agreements to reduce deforestation must be accompanied by mechanisms to ensure that those agreements will be complied with over many years into the future. But regularly and accurately measuring forest carbon across a vast remote region is an extremely daunting task.

On the other hand, anyone who has considered what is at stake realizes the urgency of trying to make a difference. We can't walk away from the potential loss of the world's remaining tropical forests both because of the enormous increase in global warming emissions their destruction would entail and because of the loss of irreplaceable biodiversity.

I believe that the solution to this conflict lies in focusing on where we are rather than on where we might want to be one day. Given the unsolved problems of measurement, baseline, and verification, we're not ready today to implement a international carbon market in which emission reductions from avoided deforestation in distant tropical forests offsets investments in renewable energy or more efficient cars here in California. And, frankly, we may never be. But we are ready to collaborate with people and organizations across the globe to develop measurement protocols, crediting approaches, and verification mechanisms that will allow us to begin to act with confidence and credibility to reduce tropical deforestation as part of the international policy response to climate change.

Obama endorses cap and trade at Global Summit

2008-11-18T22:35:12Z

The morning started off with a bang. Governor Schwarzenegger highlighted California's leadership on climate change over the past decade and then introduced the video from President-elect Obama. Looking very presidential, Obama enunciated an unambiguous commitment to enacting a federal cap and trade program with tight annual caps leading to an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. The contrast with President Bush's stance on climate change was abundantly evident to everyone. It was the first time I've ever seen a standing ovation for a video.

I'm at the Summit with NRDC's new Western Director, Felicia Marcus, who as far as I can tell knows (and is loved by) virtually everyone at the Summit. Though she's only been on staff two weeks, it's apparent she's a tremendous addition to our staff. Also from NRDC at the Summit are Audrey Chang and Kristin Grenfell who work on energy and climate issues from the San Francisco office. It's a pleasure to work with three such competent and intelligent women.

For me, the most striking thing about the Summit so far is the sense of eager commitment and collaboration among the attendees. I think the impending adoption of the AB32 Scoping Plan next month combined with the election results (a mere two weeks ago) have given the climate community a renewed sense of energy and possibility. Lots of speakers at climate change conferences begin their presentation with the claim that, despite the challenges, they're an optimist. I've always thought of it as something of a throwaway line, but today? Not so much.

Blogging from California's Global Climate Summit

2008-11-18T17:18:15Z

I'm writing from Governor Schwarznegger's Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills, California. It's 8 AM and the summit attendees are just arriving. High level government, private sector and NGO representatives are arriving from the U.S., China, Indonesia, and Brazil to participate in this two-day meeting.

I came down from our San Francisco office yesterday to participate in the meeting of the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), of which I am a boardmember. CCAR is a nonprofit organization that develops the rules for counting greenhouse gas emissions. It's basically carbon accounting and while just the mention of the word "accounting" could drive off most readers, it is one of the essential building blocks to solving the climate crisis. At yesterday's board meeting we adopted revised accounting protocols for landfill gas projects and got an update on the revisions to the forest protocols that are being developed. For more info check out the website: www.climateregistry.org

The agenda for today's summit is packed, beginning with a welcome by Governor Schwarznegger and a surprise video address from President-elect Obama (you heard it here first!). NRDC's Felicia Marcus will be participating in a panel discussion this afternoon on forestry and agriculture along with the Governor of Aceh, Indonesia and the Governors of Amapa, Amazonas and Para, Brazil.