Current Savers Blog

Last year scientists at Cornell and elsewhere announced that they may have found a new weapon against climate change — in the soils of the Amazon Basin.

Amazon peoples thousands of years ago ploughed charred plants into the ground, perhaps to improve soil fertility or just as an ancient means of waste disposal. 

Plants suck carbon out of the air as they grow and charring them keeps most of that stored carbon in a solid form which can be buried. What scientists found interesting was that the ancient Amazon ”biochar” soils still contained up to 70 times more carbon than the surrounding ground. And so the idea was born of how to trap carbon dioxide and stop it from reaching the atmosphere and cooking the planet. The notion of ploughing into the soil charred organic waste including food, woodchips, straw etc drew favourable reviews in the media .

Perhaps predictably, the biochar backlash swiftly followed. The anti-lobby feared that the private sector would bend biochar support to char whole forests, all in the name of stopping global warming, but really just to cash in on carbon credits or whatever other payments emerged. Among critics, British environmentalist George Montbiot wrote that “the last mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up.”

For me this has highlighted growing suspicion of private sector solutions to fighting climate change. The argument runs that industry created the problem of climate change, aided by consumer demand, through large scale combustion of fossil fuels, so don’t trust the private sector to solve the problem with market solutions like carbon trading or green certificates or other subsidies. Instead, carbon should be regulated through tough emissions caps, for example. The case of carbon markets has borne suspicion out to some extent.

For example steel lobbies and power companies have earned multi-billion dollar windfalls under the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, a scheme meant to curb emissions from those two high-carbon sectors especially, Reuters analysis has showed.

Ambitious estimates by the International Biochar Initiative of the merits of the technology may have helped sow the seeds of the backlash. The IBI says biochar could remove 1 billion tonnes of carbon annually by mid-century. That’s more than one tenth of annual carbon emissions now. The trouble is uncertainty in how those numbers are calculated. Certainly, the IBI acknowledges its figures depend on a few “optimistic plus” assumptions.

The IBI says its estimates require charring of no more than 3.2% of the planet’s entire net production of energy from plants and trees, on farms or in the wild. That still sounds like quite a lot to me…

The problem of using plants to fight climate change was well debated two years ago in the case of biofuels, a new car fuel now blamed for hiking food prices by competing with crop production. The trouble is you can’t tackle a problem as big as climate without making mistakes and losing a few dollars.

Big claims for solutions may best be avoided for now.

(Pictures: top left - Brazilian farm workers burn off felled trees and brush in the typical slash-and-burn method of converting jungle into farm land, near the northern town of Acailandia in the Amazon Basin, some 1,600 kilometers north of Brasilia, September 22, 2003. By Rickey Rogers

Right - The sun sets over the Amazon port of Abaetetuba, near the river’s mouth, September 26, 2008. Picture taken September 26. By Paulo Santos)

The Obama administration’s move to declare climate-warming carbon pollution a danger to human health was quickly hailed by environmental groups and leading liberals as a long-overdue shift from the Bush era and a historic first step toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

In making the announcement, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said that solving the problem would not only clean up the air but also “create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

She says the way to do it is for Congress to pass comprehensive climate change legislation while at the same time averting a “regulatory thicket” that unduly burdens governments and businesses.

But announcing that greenhouse gases are bad and getting the likes of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to agree with you is the easy part.

 Manufacturers and industry groups, concerned that they will end up shouldering the cost of cleaning up the atmosphere, were wary.

And, speaking of thickets, it will be no easy task getting such monumental policy change as a renewable portfolio standard for utilities, a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax through Congress during an economic recession.

So, what do you think?  Do you agree with the EPA?  Can Obama get it done during a recession?  Should he? What do you expect him to do first? And if you had his ear, what would be tops on your wish list?

Top photo: Reuters/ Lucy Nicholson (the Los Angeles skyline)

Bottom photo: Reuters/ Fred Prouser (a downtown Los Angeles freeway)

Among U.S. religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are the least likely to believe that human activities are contributing to climate change, according to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. You can see the numbers, based on a broader 2008 poll, here.

Overall the Pew Forum found that a plurality, or 47 percent, of the adult U.S. population accepts that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming because of human activities. Most scientists have reached the conclusion that the planet’s climate is changing because of human-induced factors, notably the emissions from burning of  the fossil fuels that drive the global economy.

Among religious groups Pew found that those who said they were unaffiliated with any faith tradition were the most likely to accept that humanity was warming the planet, with 58 percent of them taking that view.

Among white mainline Protestants the figure was 48 percent, it was 39 percent for black Protestants and 34 percent for white evangelical Protestants, a key base for the Republican Party whose leaders have often cast doubt on the link between emissions and climate change.

Former U.S. president George W. Bush pulled America out of the Kyoto treaty to curb emissions — a move hailed at the time by his Republican base — while President Barack Obama , a Democrat, has made climate a key policy priority.

Many evangelical Christians put their faith completely in the Bible which they see as the revealed word of God and so they also question other widely accepted scientific views such as evolution. Some have even suggested that climate change may be a sign that the biblical end times are drawing near.

But doubt about the link between human causes and climate change is hardly restricted to evangelicals in America. Overall 21 percent of Americans say there is no solid evidence that the earth is warming and 18 percent attribute it to natural causes. This is perhaps not surprising in a country that has an enduring love affair with the automobile.

(Photo: A view of the Manhattan skyline during Earth Hour in New York March 28, 2009.  REUTERS/Eric Thayer (UNITED STATES)

In 2004, an economic adviser to former Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol for reining in global warming would kill off the world economy like “an international Auschwitz”.

Jewish groups deplored the remarks by Andrei Illarionov (left side of photo, with Putin) as trivialising the Holocaust. And his fears seem far from justified — in 2007, the Russian economy grew by 8.1 percent and greenhouse gas emissions by just 0.3 percent. (For a story, click here).

Putin went on to defy his advice — Moscow ratified the Kyoto pact and Russia’s “Yes” gave Kyoto enough international backing weight to enter into force in 2005, setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions for industrialised nations until 2012. In the United States, former President George W. Bush’s administration did not sign up, describing Kyoto as an “economic straitjacket”.

I went to a 2003 “World Climate Change Conference” in Moscow at which Illarionov also denounced Kyoto (he was a cheerleader against Kyoto, getting more strident each time). He showed graphs projecting that Russia’s emissions would surge in coming years and explained it would be impossible to have strong economic growth and keep emissions down.  

Yet after a decade or stellar economic growth, Russia’s greenhouse gas emissions are just 11 percent up from a low in 1998 and still 33.94 percent below levels in 1990, the year before the collapse of the Soviet Union and its smokestack industries.

And analysts say there is still huge room for energy efficiency in Russia to cut emissions (and save money), even as it faces recession in 2009 as part of the global downturn.

Maybe Russia’s emissions data from recent years are misleadingly good — rising energy export prices during most of the period until 2008 were a gigantic windfall boosting economic growth but not emissions?

And maybe Kyoto is having little economic impact in industrialised countries because a lot of them are way over their goals, ignoring tough action on cuts while talking piously about their commitment to fight warming.

But overall, is Kyoto far less of an economic millstone than its opponents feared?

(Photo above: Smoke billow from chimneys of a power station that is attached to the Zlatoust steel mill in the Ural town of Zlatoust March 14, 2009. Reuters/Thomas Peter)

There is no doubt that Californians made themselves clear on Thursday when they gathered to tell U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that they had had enough of offshore oil drilling and were ready to turn their attention to solar, wind and other renewables.

“I think the verdict today is very clear, that drilling is inappropriate,” said Leah Zimmerman, who attended the meeting dressed in a polar bear suit.

“California is well-known for being an innovative state. Why not take advantage of that rather than trying to dampen it?” asked Craig Cadwallader of the Surfrider Foundation, a group dedicated to protecting oceans and beaches.

When Salazar took office in January he was handed a Bush-era plan to open parts of the Atlantic, Gulf Coast, Pacific, and Alaska to outer continental shelf drilling.

He decided to arrange four meetings nationwide to listen to what people had to say.

“This is a sea change from the Bush administration,” said California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi.

Salazar did not say whether the Obama administration’s energy plan would allow for new offshore drilling, but said that it would include oil and gas.

“We may not always be able to do what is popular politically but we have to do what is right based on the policy issues that are driving this country,” he told reporters. He cited those issues as national security, environmental security and economic opportunity.

“You can see public opinion on these things change over a very short period of time depending on the price of gasoline,” he said. “We need a longer term framework.”

– Reporting by Clare Baldwin

Photocredit: Reuters/Max Whittaker (U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in Sacramento, California April 15, 2009)

A scientist at the University of California, Riverside has named a newly discovered lichen after President Obama, a gesture he clearly intends as an honor.

Kerry Knudsen, lichen curator at UCR’s Herbarium, says he discovered the hardy orange organism on Santa Rosa Island,  off the California coast, and “named it Caloplaca obamae to show my appreciation for the president’s support of science and science education.”

Lichen is a plant-like growth that looks like moss.

Knudsen,  an ardent supporter of Obama, says he made his final collections of the presidential lichen, which grows on soil and was almost driven to extinction by cattle ranching on the island during the final weeks of the presidential election.

“Indeed, the final draft (of his scientific paper) was completed on the very day of President Obama’s inauguration,” he said in a release issued by UCR.

Though President Lincoln has a rose in his honor, the university says the lichen the first species of any organism to be named after Obama — who after all has been in office for less than 3 months.

And Knudsen, who has written more than 70 peer-reviewed research papers on lichen, suggested to the Los Angeles Times that he never would have bestowed such an honor on Obama’s predecessor.

“I think there’s a dung beetle named after Bush,” he said. “Thats definately an insult.”

There was no immediate word from the White House press corps, which never lets moss grow under its feet.

The contestants are chunky to say the least, but to their celebrity coaches and sponsors they are things of beauty: 11 endangered leatherback sea turtles, competing to be the first to swim from their chilly feeding grounds off the Canadian Atlantic coast to their breeding grounds in the Caribbean.

The Great Turtle Race starts April 16, but the handicapping began early, with boosters for massive entrants Nightswimmer and Backspacer boasting that they were sure to win.

“Our turtle, Nightswimmer — huge, beautiful,” said Mike Mills, bass player with alternative pop/rock group R.E.M., which is sponsoring the big male racer. “Of course with (former U.S. Olympic champion swimmer) Janet Evans as coach I really don’t see how we can lose.”

Evans said that as a distance swimmer, she can relate to Nightswimmer’s challenge. Because he weighs 970 pounds, she said, “I’m going to try to get him to use his size to move through the water quickly and to conserve some energy, because he really has a long way to go.”

Olympic swimmer Eric Shanteau is coaching female competitor Backspacer, sponsored by alternative rock group Pearl Jam. He had nothing but praise for her training regimen.

“She’s bulked up on jellyfish to a stout 825 pounds, but that being said she is in her peak aerobic shape,” Shanteau said on a telephone conference call promoting the race. “You guys try swimming 4,000 miles down the coast and doing it all lugging around a 1000-pound shell!”

To show what good condition Backspacer is in, Shanteau said, “She’s almost able to do her first sit-up, which for a turtle I think is pretty good … I’ve got faith in our girl. She’s put in the work, she’s put in the training, she’s going to come out on top.”

The competitors should complete the 4,000 mile journey in about 14 days, though the general migrating period lasts four to six months. They’ll be tracked as they swim with satellite transmitters attached to their leathery backs, which will let scientists and fans know not just where they are but how cold the water is and how deep the turtles are diving.

Organized by National Geographic, Conservation International, the race aims to raise awareness of the leatherbacks’ endangered status. This is the first time the event has taken place in the Atlantic; the previous two turtle races have taken place in the Pacific.

Photo: The Canadian Sea Turtle Network (Leatherback turtle with satellite transmitter, off Halifax, Nova Scotia, July 24, 2008)

Migratory birds have an amazing ability to grow muscles before their flights by eating a lot but without hard training. Imagine being able to copy that — get in shape by lounging on the sofa gorging yourself for weeks and then run a marathon.

But there are signs that birds will be in trouble in future because climate change will shift their breeding grounds further north in Europe, according to a study of European warblers today. (for a story, click here) Wintering grounds in Africa or southern Europe are unlikely to move so much.

That means, for instance, that whitethroats (above right) that fly from south of the Sahara Desert to Europe and back twice a year may have to travel an extra 400 km (250 miles) towards the end of the century, on top of a one-way trip that can already be up to 6,000 km.

The birds may need new protected areas for stopovers in southern Europe where they can refuel on bugs, according to the scientists, led by Stephen Willis of Durham University in England.

Flying thousands of km twice a year is a gigantic test and the extra few hundred km could be the difference between life and death, Willis told me.

Birds have of course adapted before — to Ice Ages or the drying of the Sahara thousands of years ago. But will they be able to do so again as climate change adds to other pressures, such as a loss of habitats to farmland or cities?

(Photo: Sue Tranter, copyright RSPB Images)

California utility PG&E is at the head of the class when it comes to smart meters in North America, having installed 2.3 million of them. It is on track to have nearly 10 million working by 2011, according to figures gathered by the utility and a survey of smart metering programs by the Energy Retail Association, of Britain.

Smart meters are in their infancy but their numbers are expanding rapidly in the United States and around the world. 

After PG&E, PECO in Pennsylvania has installed 2.2 million meters — all of its power and natural gas customers.  Even at 2.3 million, PG&E and North American utilities lag behind Italy and it biggest utility, Enel, which installed 30 million smart meters nationwide in four years.

The digital meters allow for near real-time readings by customer and utility, allowing better informed decisions on cutting demand as well as getting a better handle on whether new power plants and lines are needed. Smart metering also offers the chance for customers to voluntarily set limits so that appliance turn off automatically if prices rise to high.

It will cost PG&E customers — the cost is passed through to them — about $2.2 billion to install the 5.3 million electricity and 4.8 million natural gas meters.

California, always seeking to be a trendsetter on environmental policy, is weighing a proposal to charge 25 cents for every paper or plastic bag distributed at grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores. The money raised would go into a state fund used to clean up trash and prevent litter related to what the bill calls “single-use” bags.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, says 25 cents a bag is high enough to have a real impact on consumer behavior. The fee would be waived for some low-income Californians.

The idea, of course, is to encourage people to bring their own reusable bags to the supermarket. Brownley argues that a similar program in Ireland has been a success, reducing plastic bag litter by more than 90 percent.

The bill’s other aim is to help the state offset the $25 million a year it spends to clean up plastic bag waste. Municipalities spend $300 million, Brownley says.

Chuck DeVore, a Republican assemblyman from Orange County, said the idea is “just one of a sorry series of tax increases that the Democrats are trying to foist on the working people of California.”

DeVore said the bag charge would add $2 to $3 to the bill every time a family goes to the store. And if that family brings along reusable bags, that can be a health hazard.

“If you buy some chicken or some meat, unless you figure a way to wash those bags every time, you will have salmonella in those natural fibers,” DeVore said.

Currently, retailers in California are required to set up in-store recycling programs for used bags. Brownley, however, says preliminary results show there has only been a negligible increase in bag recycling since that law went into effect.

But how realistic is it to push through a bill during a recession that will effectively make consumers pay more at the grocery store? Would such a law prompt you to break out those reusable bags once and for all?

DeVore says he expects the bill to pass the Assembly and land on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk.

(Additional reporting by Bernie Woodall; photo by Brendan McDermid, Reuters)