A summary of the climate bill

Let me start by warning/notifying readers that this week will see a lot of posts about Waxman-Markey.  The name of...

NASA: China's pollution control efforts improved air quality during the Olympics

Over at the Atlantic, James Fallows noted a NASA study, presented at the December meeting of the American Geophysical Union, that shows that China's efforts to clean up the air pollution during the Olympics did improve air quality.

Though the reductions in air pollutants seems to be specific to the Beijing area, the report noted:

During the two months when restrictions were in place, the levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) -- a noxious gas resulting from fossil fuel combustion (primarily in cars, trucks, and power plants) -- plunged nearly 50 percent. Likewise, levels of carbon monoxide (CO) fell about 20 percent.

The release that accompanied the report noted that the "steep decline in certain pollutants surprised the researchers," and in all fairness, it surprised me too. My coverage of the Beijing air was decidedly pollution-heavy. Though it's hard for me to swallow that Beijing may have gotten the air-pollution measures right -- an API of 95 is bad no matter how you spin it -- I couldn't agree more with Fallows:

... it shows that corrective steps can improve even the most hopeless-seeming environmental disasters. It's worth trying to do something, rather than just hunkering down in bed and trying to take very, very shallow breaths -- my strategy in the months from April to July.

In other words, Yes We Can.

NASA images below the fold:

Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last

Mark Jacobson (associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, Stanford University) has just published a paper in the journal of...

For eSolar, clean energy starts with computing power

An overhead view of eSolar’s Sierra solar array, located in Southern California (Photo courtesy e-Solar)   I’m sitting in the...

Canadian bishop challenges the 'moral legitimacy' of tar sands production

The Catholic bishop whose diocese extends over the tar sands has posted a scathing pastoral letter, "The Integrity of Creation and the Athabasca Oil Sands."

The letter by Bishop Luc Bouchard concludes, "even great financial gain does not justify serious harm to the environment," and "the present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oil sands cannot be morally justified." Equally powerful is who the letter is addressed to:

The critical points made in this letter are not directed to the working people of Fort McMurray but to oil company executives in Calgary and Houston, to government leaders in Edmonton and Ottawa, and to the general public whose excessive consumerist lifestyle drives the demand for oil.

We have met the enemy and he is us!

Other than sticking with the euphemism "oil sands" (see "Canada tries to tar-sandbag Obama on climate" the remarkably detailed and heavily footnoted letter is a brilliant piece of work dissecting what has been called the "biggest global warming crime ever seen."

Bishop Bouchard notes that "The environmental liabilities that result from the various steps in this process are significant and include":

• Destruction of the boreal forest eco-system
• Potential damage to the Athabasca water shed
• The release of greenhouse gases
• Heavy consumption of natural gas
• The creation of toxic tailings ponds

He writes at length on all five, and concludes

Any one of the above destructive effects provokes moral concern, but it is when the damaging effects are all added together that the moral legitimacy of oil sands production is challenged.

Here is what he says specifically about greenhouse gases:

Regional climate policy is still moving forward in the Northwest

Over the last couple of weeks, there’s been a lot of hand-wringing about the state of climate policy in the...

Transportation policy and the working married woman

Progressives in favor of congestion pricing on highways and in central cities tend to argue for those policies on progressive grounds (shock!) -- that such pricing systems reduce emissions, improve air quality, and fund transit improvements, which benefit lower- and middle-income households. Those are all nice benefits to congestion pricing programs, but we shouldn't neglect the congestion reduction function.

Congestion costs America some $80 billion per year, in the form of lost time and wasted fuel. And as it turns out, commutes extended by congestion have other effects, as well:

There is a strong empirical evidence demonstrating that labor force participation rates of married women are negatively correlated with commuting time. What is more, the analysis shows that metropolitan areas which experienced relatively large increases in average commuting time between 1980 and 2000 also had slower growth of labor force participation of married women.

Long commutes are typically associated with dense cities like New York, but in recent decades, congestion has grown fastest in places with rapid exurban growth -- like Dallas, Riverside (California), San Diego, and Washington, D.C.

Deployment precedes innovation

In energy efficiency circles, the story of Jan Schilham's 1997 redesign of a pumping system for a Shanghai carpet-making factory is famous. Schilham saved 92 percent of pumping energy and lowered capital costs by using a well-known principle: Pumping water slowly through fat, straight pipes reduces friction and saves energy relative to pumping the same volume quickly through narrow twisty pipes.

Why isn't it always done that way? Because the bigger pipes cost more than the energy saving. Schilham's insight was that energy is not the only payback. Fatter pipes lower the size of the pumps and motors required, so even with the additional plumbing expenses, total capital costs are lower. Energy savings in this context are free, or better than free.

In a narrow sense, this was an improvement in cost accounting, not technology. Nothing unknown or untested was deployed. No breakthrough enabled the lower costs -- they'd always been possible. Schilham simply counted a benefit that had been overlooked, demonstrating that a technique usually considered unprofitable actually saved money.

The key that allowed Schilham to exercise his genius was that Interface carpets had already decided to reduce its ecological footprint drastically. "Whether" had already been decided -- Schilham was worrying about the "how." Essentially he was in the position of someone complying with a standards-based efficiency rule.

Report says Lisa Heinzerling to join EPA as climate adviser

More big news out of EPA today: The legal mind behind one of the most important environmental cases of the past decade appears to be headed to the EPA to advise Administrator Lisa Jackson on climate change issues, according to a published report.

Joining Jackson's team will be Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling, the lead author of the plaintiffs' briefs in Massachusetts v. EPA, the court case settled by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Via TPMDC, here's the Carbon Control News ($ub req'd) report on the news:

In the Supreme Court case, Heinzerling was the lead author of arguments from a coalition of environmentalists and states claiming EPA had a legal obligation to address greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The court agreed, and EPA has been struggling for the past several years on how to fulfill that obligation. Heinzerling's presence at EPA could help the agency craft climate change policies and potential regulations that conform with the high court ruling and can withstand future legal challenges.

The EPA press office would not confirm the Heinzerling news, saying only that Jackson "is building a team to help implement the President's environmental agenda and it will be announced shortly." Heinzerling's voicemail recording at Georgetown says she is on a two-year leave from the school because she has "taken a position in the new administration." Georgetown Law officials declined to comment.

If the news is confirmed, it will be a significant development, considering that the EPA is going to have to follow through with the endangerment finding mandated by the Supreme Court in that case. The Bush administration refused to make a finding, but Jackson has pledged to complete the work. At her confirmation hearing earlier this month, Jackson said that the endangerment finding "will indeed trigger the beginnings of regulation of CO2 for this country."