Current Savers Blog

This article by Charlie Devereux originally appeared in GlobalPost.

Flying high over Venezuela’s southeastern territories, a plane banks and fires into a mass of clouds.

Venezuela is not at war with the skies but with a severe drought that has caused an electricity crisis and forced the government to resort to unconventional methods to make it rain.

The government began “bombing clouds,” or cloud seeding, late last year after it emerged that the country was facing a dire water shortage.

Using technology borrowed from Cuba and Chile, the idea is to fire a mixture of silver iodide, dry ice and salt into vertically growing cumulonimbus clouds to encourage raindrops to join together.

“Where we have sewn it has rained,” said Jose Gregorio Sottolano, president of the National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology. “What I can’t tell you, and it would be a lie, is how much water has fallen and if it has increased.”

Other countries have been using the technique for decades. China is reported to have fired rockets into the clouds above Beijing before the 2008 Olympic Games to reduce pollution. The U.S. has been cloud seeding since 1946 to make it rain in areas suffering from drought, to reduce the size of hailstones in storms and fog around airports, and occasionally to make it snow at large ski resorts. Eleven western states have ongoing weather modification programs.

Sottolano said Venezuela is suffering from the effects of El Nino, a climatic phenomenon that can drastically reduce rainfall. The Orinoco, one of South America’s largest rivers, has seen its water levels reduced to record lows in recent months.

And that’s a problem for a country that developed a national grid based on generating power from dams. Built in the 1960s, the grid aimed to take advantage of the country’s abundance of rivers and the efficiency of hydro-electricity.

But the Venezuelan government is plagued by inefficiency and several of its thermoelectric plants — which heat water until it turns to steam, then use the steam to power a turbine — are only partly operating or still under construction. In mid-January, Planta Centro, the largest thermoelectric plant in the country, only had one of its five generators in operation.

Meanwhile, water levels in Venezuela’s reservoirs continue to fall. It is now the height of the dry season, when skies are typically cloudless.

That makes the technology hard to utilize. “The clouds need to be between four and seven kilometers high in order to be seeded,” said Sottolano.

Not to mention that some meteorologists doubt whether cloud seeding works at all.

“The main problem is finding the right type of cloud at the right temperature — naturally, with the technique being very expensive, one needs to have an expert team with good cloud physics measurement equipment on board the aircraft, for any chance of a cost effective result being achieved,” said Roger Williams, former director of the Bermuda Weather Service.

“A seeding project in desert areas or during the ‘dry season’ is likely to be a waste of time and money,” he said.

And even if it works, it will have to rain a lot in the wet season if Venezuela is to overcome this crisis.

The hydroelectric dam at El Guri reservoir supplies 44 percent of national demand. But a report by Edelca, the state company that manages that reservior, revealed dangerously low levels.

As of Feb. 1, the reservoir was at 258 meters, 14 meters below its ideal level: If it falls below 240 meters, its turbines will cease working altogether. The report concluded that if desperate measures are not taken, Venezuela could see its national grid collapse by June.

On Monday, Chavez declared an electrical emergency due to what he claimed was the worst drought in 100 years. “We have done various studies and we’re ready to declare an electricity emergency, seeing as El Guri is falling by 13 centimeters every day,” he said.

Aside from bombing clouds, the government has also imposed water and electricity rationing, unpopular measures in a year when it faces a stern test in upcoming National Assembly elections in September.

In Caracas, rationing was suspended last month after the first day produced chaotic scenes in which a lack of functioning traffic lights caused bottlenecks and schools were not able to operate. President Hugo Chavez sacked the minister he had placed in charge of the newly created Electricity Ministry and appointed his long-serving finance minister instead.

The electricity crisis has prompted a debate about its causes. The government line: Blame the weather.

“Has there been a delay in some projects? Yes, that’s true. Has there been inefficient management in some areas? That’s true. But the only cause of electricity rationing is the drought,” Chavez said recently.

His critics say underinvestment during an oil boom that saw consumption increase by 28 percent in seven years is the primary cause.

“Part of the problem is due to the drought — that’s undeniable,” said Daniel Varnagy, director of the Economic and Administrative Sciences department at Caracas’ Simon Bolivar University. “But the drought is affecting us because the recommendations for planning for growth in the electricity sector were not followed.”

For now, Chavez will rely on any solution he can find to fix what is a critical situation in an election year.

More from Globalpost:

Venezuela converts tourist areas into farmland

The coming war for water

China grows thirstier

Venezuela bans violent video games

Chavez: U.S. troops invading Haiti

Image shows an aerial view of the Orinoco River in Santa Maria del Orinoco, about 700 kilometres south of Caracas May 6, 2006. REUTERS/Jorge Silva

There’s nothing Indians like better than a good debate.

So when Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh announced last month that he would hold public debates to decide the commercial fate of genetically modified brinjal (eggplant), there were hopes these would provide a chance for all stakeholders to be heard.

But the debates, in seven cities including Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bengaluru, were chaotic, nothing more than acrimonious shouting matches between environmental activists and scientists, who say they were not given a fair chance to voice their opinion.

One scientist said he had his hand raised for more than half an hour, but was not allowed to speak. Another said he was told he could make a presentation, but was again not allowed to. Others were not even permitted to enter the premises.

So are townhalls such as these the best way to discuss matters of serious scientific weight?

Sure, the decision affects farmers who grow brinjal and people who cook it in their homes everyday. And a decision to let them speak is a laudable one.

But perhaps a better idea would have been separate discussion forums for scientists, NGOs and the public.

A common platform for all meant that only the loudest voices were heard, giving the debates a format not unlike popular reality TV shows. What chance did the scientists have?

In a democracy, public opinion counts, but can that be allowed to overrule science?

Ramesh is now taking the public hearing route for a roadmap for cleaning up India’s polluted rivers. Perhaps that will result in some real action rather than a temporary suspension.

OK, it’s cold in Washington. It’s really cold. And snowy. And blizzardy. It’s hard to recall that long-ago moment — what was it, six days ago? — when you could go for a walk without cross-country skis and a flask of brandy. But just because it’s winter doesn’t mean global warming is a myth.

But the storms gave conservatives fresh fodder for mocking former Vice President Al Gore and his efforts on global climate change.  Senator Jim DeMint tweeted “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle’,” Politico reported.

For decades, scientists have struggled to explain the difference between weather, which changes in the short term, and climate, which changes over the long term. There’s a good explanation at the new government Climate Service Web site called “Short term cooling on a warming planet.” The new site went up this week, between blizzards, and is supposed to guide consumers and businesses so they can adapt to climate change. The Climate Service itself is expected to be up and running by the start of the next U.S. fiscal year that begins on October 1.

The last decade was the warmest on record, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United Kingdom’s Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization. “The bottom line is that current temperatures are way above the long-term average,” NOAA’s David Easterling says.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is certainly not backing away from its 2007 report that global warming is occurring and human activity is causing it. But climate change skeptics have focused on what they see as problems with how some of the data that led to this conclusion were collected and reported. To most scientists, though, this is all beside the point.

One sign that the planet is getting warmer is what’s happening in the Arctic Sea. It’s not as icy as it used to be at this time of year, and that means there won’t be much thick, hardy sea ice at the beginning of the spring melt season — which in turn means there will be more open water exposed. Dark-colored water absorbs the sun’s rays, just as light-colored sea ice reflects them, so it’s likely to get even warmer up there. That’s important because the Arctic is one of the world’s biggest weather-makers.

But that still doesn’t explain the unusual weather patterns — putting it politely — that have hammered the U.S. East Coast this winter. However, part of the overall long-term forecast for a warmer world is for more severe weather events, and the current storms could qualify. So could the notable lack of snow at some venues of the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Oddball weather can be a sign of climate change.

That’s why they call it climate change — civilizations are used to climate being the same as it has been for millennia, and scientists believe that’s going to change on a relatively rapid timescale. Not everybody likes the term “climate change.” So how about “global weirding“?

For more Reuters political news, click here.

Photo credits:

REUTERS/Jason Reed (U.S. Capitol as snow falls on Washington, January 30, 2010)

REUTERS/Andy Clark (A truck carrying snow to the Olympic snowboarding and freestyle venue in West Vancouver, British Columbia February 3, 2010.)

Today travelers can rack up frequent flyer miles and trade them in for upgrades, tickets and other amenities. 

How about perks not for zooming across thousands of miles in a fossil-fueled jet, but for zero emission miles? Consumers who collect miles for zero-emissions travel — say, bike riding — could swap them for a cool gadget, like an Apple iPhone, paid for by companies or other individuals who need or want to cut carbon emissions, for example.

That’s an idea from Volvo Group, the global heavy duty transportation company, and its environmental initiative at Commute Greener, which offers an application for consumers, businesses and governments track their carbon footprint and meet goals to cut their emissions.

Volvo’s Magnus Holmqvist said it’s not clear how the market for zero emissions miles for consumers will take shape, but he believes it could help spur people to change their behavior.

We were wondering if readers think a mass market could develop for individual carbon tracking — not just for big corporations — and whether a set of perks would lead people to ride their bike to work instead of driving a vehicle?

(Photo:  A woman rides a bicycle on Chang’an avenue in central Beijing  Photo credit: Jason Lee / Reuters)

– Kathy Nieland is U.S. Sustainability and Climate Change leader for global accounting and advisory firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. She also serves on the independent, not-for-profit Carbon Disclosure Project. The views expressed are her own. –

If you think the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new interpretative guidance on disclosing the risks of climate change applies only to big polluters, think again.

The guidance is evidence that the SEC views climate change as among the potential business risks that companies should evaluate and disclose.

It clarifies that public companies will need to evaluate the potential material impact of legislation, regulation and international accords related to climate change. Companies in every industry will need to use this guidance and make a determination if climate change poses material risks to their supply chains, distribution networks and physical assets. This may include, but is not limited to, severe weather events, scarcer water supplies and changes in demand for resources such as heating fuel, for example.

This means chocolate companies will have to assess the impact of climate change on cocoa bean production, clothing apparel manufacturers will have to look at the effect on cotton crops and financial services firms will have to evaluate the impact on their lending portfolios.

Indeed, industries of all kinds must assess the potential impact of climate change — or any environmental occurrence — on the condition and availability of the raw materials and natural resources on which their businesses depend.

Given the nature of what companies will need to evaluate, they may have to turn to outside experts for help in parsing out the known risk factors from the unknowns. This will give management the basis they need to evaluate their disclosure requirements.

For example, some companies may seek out scientists who specialize in biodiversity issues or others may ask a team of political scientists and environmental engineers to help them identify how mandates to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions should change their assumptions about risk. Implications on the supply chain, in particular, will present challenges for almost every company.

After evaluating the risks, companies may decide that they aren’t material and that they don’t need to be disclosed, but it won’t be just a point-in-time inventory. Companies will need to figure out how to monitor these risks going forward and adjust their need for disclosure accordingly. This is beyond what most companies are doing now. Companies that already participate in voluntary disclosure programs like the Carbon Disclosure Project already practice some level of monitoring climate-related risk, but the level of disclosure varies widely among companies.

By making it clear that climate-related disclosures are required under federal securities law, the SEC is raising the stakes for officials at public companies who have been under pressure from investors to make these disclosures.

The SEC is now putting public company officials on notice that they expect analysis that is robust and that corporate financial reporting should reflect this, if material. For public companies, even those that are not big polluters, the issues of climate change could still have an impact on their business. The bottom line is that all public filers will need to do some regular evaluation of the impact of climate change and determine what type of disclosure, if any, is required.

Photo shows the headquarters of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, July 6, 2009. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own.

President Barack Obama read the last rites for national cap and trade in 2010 on Feb. 2, while senior Democrats in the House of Representatives prepared to put a stake through its heart to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency does not try to resurrect it unilaterally without congressional approval.

Obama finally bowed to the inevitable and admitted cap and trade might need to be separated from a more popular green jobs bill in the Senate, a shift that would effectively end prospects for cap and trade in 2010.

In a question-and-answer session the president commented: “The only thing I would say about it is this: We may be able to separate these things out. And it’s possible that’s where the Senate ends up.”

Obama made no mention of cap and trade in his State of the Union speech last week and it was absent from the list of priorities the president outlined in a meeting with Senate Democrats on Wednesday, when he called on them to “finish the job” on healthcare and financial reform.

Revenues from the sale of emissions permits have been stripped out of the president’s proposed budget — unlike last year when they were included.

Cap and trade looked impossible to do in any event following the Democratic Party’s string of election defeats over the past four months and amid mounting unpopularity.

But by admitting that it could be stripped out of the main legislation Obama essentially removed any last momentum for the controversial programme in the Senate and condemned it to defeat.

With the president now backing away from cap and trade, there is no real prospect EPA will press ahead regulating greenhouse gas emissions under its (contested) authority under the Clean Air Act. A unilateral move would be inherently political and could only come if it was sanctioned by the White House. In the current environment there is no chance of that.

PROHIBITING EPA ACTION

Just to make sure, two senior Democrats said Tuesday they would introduce legislation forbidding EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (Dem, Missouri) and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (Dem, Minnesota) promised to introduce a bill amending the CAA to make it clear that it does not allow for regulation of greenhouse gases.

Skelton bluntly argued “we cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emission to unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. It appears the clean energy bill moving through Congress is stalled. Let us set that bill aside and pass this scaled back energy legislation.”

In a similar vein, Peterson said, “I have no confidence that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act without severe harm to all taxpayers.” Although the bill not may go anywhere, it underscores congressional hostility to a unilateral move by EPA.

HOUSE MAJORITY DISAPPEARS

Neither Skelton nor Peterson is in the “chain of command” on climate legislation. But both are among the most senior Democrats in the House and immensely influential.

Crucially, both voted for the climate bill the first time around last year (Roll Call 477), when 44 other Democrats rebelled and the bill scraped through by a majority of just seven votes (219-212).

If Skelton and Peterson now oppose the cap and trade component, the bill’s majority has effectively disappeared.

Their hostility is significant for who they are and whom they represent. Both represent conservative-leaning districts that voted for Senator John McCain rather than Obama in 2008. Skelton’s fourth district in Missouri broke 61-38 for McCain, while Peterson’s seventh district in Minnesota broke 50-47, according to data compiled by the Swing State Project.

They are among the long tail of “vulnerable” Democrats who face the voters in November and cannot rely on the president’s own (reduced) popularity to protect them. Previously loyal, they are now moving into opposition on climate issues.

LOSING THE RURAL INTERIOR

Crucially, Skelton’s Missouri is famed as the ultimate bellwether state in presidential elections — having voted for the winner in every election between 1904 and 2004 (voting for the loser only in 1956 and 2008, when it went for McCain).

It is now arguably less important as a swing state than Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico. But even in 2008, Obama lost the state by less than 4,000 votes (0.1 percent) out of a total of almost 3 million cast. While Missouri was not part of Obama’s winning coalition, it is a state he cannot afford to write off, given his potential vulnerability in other parts of the country, which has been amply demonstrated, even on the coasts.

If cap and trade is not viable in Missouri, and with representatives like Skelton and Peterson, it is no longer viable in the current Congress. Since there is no point pushing water up hill, the administration is now abandoning it.

Image shows people watching an illuminated so-called CO2 cube pictured in the water of St Jorgens Lake in front of Tycho Brahe Planetarium in Copenhagen, December 7, 2009. The cube visually shows the amount of carbon dioxide produced by an average person in one month. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski

Just last month, Walmart announced that it would be moving to eliminate non-biodegradable plastic bags from stores across the United States to reduce their collection in landfills. While they’ve demonstrated positive green initiatives, this week there’s been accusations of hypocrisy because they’ve been passing off a harmful, manufactured textile as sustainable.

Environmental advocates had been applauding Walmart for their plastic bag reduction goals and the installation of more energy-efficient systems. For example, coolers that only light up when a shopper’s presence is detected. So this new accusation from the Federal Trade Commission comes at a bad time.

Walmart, along with many other big box and chain stores across the United States, has been selling products as bamboo that are actually rayon. It is a textile shrouded in debate, because it contains cellulose that is naturally occurring. However, it does require an extensive manufacturing process to produce.

Regardless of whether rayon is natural or not; it’s definitely not bamboo. This labelling misleads consumers who think that they’re purchasing clothing and other home goods made from one of the most sustainable materials on the planet.

As we’ve seen a lot lately, proper regulation and disclosure is a common issue when it comes to things labelled green.

See the original version of the story at GlobalPost.com.

More from GlobalPost:

Regulating green building codes

Unique projects promote environmentalism

Vancouver 2010 Olympics recognized for environmental progress

Skepticism about Energy Star savings

David Rockefeller, Jr., a philanthropist, is sponsoring a year-long sailing trip around the Americas looking at environmental impacts on the oceans — from melting ice to fish farms. Here are his thoughts after stepping aboard the voyage for two weeks around Cape Horn.  The views expressed are his own.

For climbers, there is just one Everest.  For sailors, there is just one Cape Horn – the southernmost piece of the American Continents, and often the windiest, most treacherous place in all the oceans.

Eight of us voyagers recently sailed around “the Horn” on a boat called Ocean Watch.  We flew a billowing spinnaker with a graphic of the two American continents and a mainsail sporting our own expedition logo, “Around the Americas, 2009-2010.”  A flock of thirty albatross rode the surprisingly benign ocean swells.  Two breakfasting cruise ships gave scale to the forbidding cliffs.

Ten years ago I sat on the Pew Ocean Commission and learned in startling detail that our boundless seas had become imperiled by the careless behavior of a rapidly expanding human population and its post-industrial habits of taking, making and disposing.

As a result, I determined to do something to let other sailors know what I had learned: for example, that hyper-efficient fishing vessels had removed 90 percent of the large fish from the world’s oceans in just fifty years.

I created Sailors for the Sea, a non-profit organization designed to turn recreational boaters into Ocean Stewards.  Then, four years ago in the port of Naples, Italy – Mark Schrader, David Treadway and I (all members of the crew that just rounded Cape Horn) came up with an idea to circumnavigate the two American continents by sail and draw attention to the serious health challenges faced by the world’s oceans.

In partnership with Seattle’s Pacific Science Center we would call the expedition “Around the Americas.”  We are making fifty stops along the way, meeting with and listening to fishermen, scientists, schoolchildren and public officials at each stop.  We’re conducting scientific experiments on board – measuring water temperature, salinity and acidity – and telling our story at Yacht Clubs and Museums.

Ocean Watch left Seattle, Washington, under the command of Captain Mark Schrader on May 31st of last year.  It made its way through the shifting sea ice of the Northwest Passage, gales west of Greenland, adverse ocean currents off the coast of Brazil, and finally arrived at the southernmost tip of Patagonia, Chile, where the crew waited out a twenty-four hour gale before rounding Cape Horn.

So what have we learned?  The sea ice is melting, and ships are making it through Arctic waters as never before. Farmed fish have now surpassed wild caught fish as a source of human protein.  Cruise ships have become the tour buses of the sea.  CO2, when it descends into the sea in great amounts, can threaten the viability of corals, shellfish and – indeed – the entire web of ocean life.

As Ocean Watch now begins its passage north from Cape Horn to Seattle, we have many stories to tell: of bravery, of natural wonders and dramatic weather; but also of  an ocean in trouble.  Watch this space, Mate, I will be writing pieces about fish farms and what observations  are telling us about the health of our seas.

Photos show the view from the Ocean Watch as it sails around Cape Horn on Jan 24, 2010. Image below shows Captain Mark Schrader. REUTERS/Handout/David Thoreson

If the scientific evidence for manmade global warming is so compelling, why do so many people still have their doubts?

Why do politicians and the media often discuss global warming with such certainty, ignoring the scientists’ carefully worded caveats?

And how much harder will it be to persuade the sceptics after the uproar over whether scientists exaggerated unreliable evidence or colluded to withhold information to strengthen their case?

Those tricky questions were raised at a sometimes fractious news conference in London to discuss the future of climate science.

Three leading British scientists told reporters the science behind anthropogenic global warming was “overwhelming”, but admitted they are struggling to get their message across to a sometimes doubtful public.

“We have a very confused public out there about climate change and science,” said Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office. “We’ve got a real issue about communicating science in a very clear way that different levels of the public can understand. ”

The problem, the panel suggested, lies not in the raw data but in how the information becomes garbled between the researchers and the public.

The executive summaries of lengthy scientific reports that are presented to politicians tend to iron out the experts’ nuances and uncertainties. Media reports can then further simplify and exaggerate the evidence, the panel said.

“Uncertainty tends to get lost in the headline,” said Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London.

Confusion over the difference between long-term climate patterns and short-term weather has further muddied the waters, they said. If parts of the world had a particularly cold winter or a rainy summer, why should anyone believe the evidence behind manmade global warming, doubters ask.

That sort of confusion can only be addressed by getting basic scientific messages across to the public more clearly, Slingo added.

“(We must) expose the fundamental science behind climate change, which is very robust actually,” she said.

The scientists said they must also regain the public’s trust after damaging headlines about hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit and the reliability of evidence used by the United Nation’s climate change body in its key report on the topic.

Hoskins said the IPCC’s mistaken claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 should not be allowed to undermine the  rest of the U.N. panel’s work or the broader evidence for climate change.

“Just because you have a miscarriage of justice, it doesn’t mean you throw away the whole legal system,” Hoskins told the briefing at the Science Media Centre, part of the historic Royal Institution, the world’s oldest independent research body.

The questions grew tougher when none of the panel members agreed to discuss the leaked email row, dubbed “Climategate”. One reporter from a national newspaper said the scientists had failed to explain why internet forums are full of people who just don’t believe the science behind manmade global warming.

“Call me naïve, but I came here today expecting a confident fightback from climate science and I haven’t heard that,” the reporter said. “You are not addressing head on and robustly the issue of perception in the way you need to do.”

The panellists refused to budge, however. They would not talk about the leaked emails until an inquiry reports its findings.

They also refused to say if the IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri should resign over the glacier claim.

They wanted to stick firmly to the science and said they would always be willing to examine any credible evidence from climate change sceptics.

“I’m sorry if you feel it is not adequate, but it is where the scientific community has to be. We just simply have to do the research and bring the scientific evidence to the table,” said Professor Alan Thorpe, a climate scientist who is also chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council.

Chinese solar power companies have shone amid the downturn in the solar industry,  converting their low cost advantage into bigger market share and profits.

Now, China’s Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd is making a play to raise its global profile.  It’s taking its solar panels to the world’s biggest sporting event, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, and has signed up to help sponsor the event.

The news makes Yingli the first renewable energy company to sponsor the World Cup — where the world’s best football (or soccer for U.S. fans) teams compete —  as well as the first Chinese company to seal a global sponsorship deal with FIFA, the world’s governing body for football.

(The Wold Cup this year, coincidentally, is in South Africa, which announced last year government support for solar akin to solar incentives in Germany, the world’s largest market.)

The move reflects Yingli’s desire to increase its brand awareness. And that could pay off, Piper Jaffray analyst Jesse Pichel says.

“With a minimal investment, (Yingli) will be able to leverage the FIFA marketing machine, the Yingli brand will catch millions of viewers’ eyes, sitting side by side with the most powerful consumer brands in the world like Coca Cola, Adidas, and Sony, and (Yingli) will further improve its bankability,” Pichel said in a note.

Some solar power companies — such as Silicon Valley-based SunPower Corp — already have branding and marketing campaigns targeted at consumers.

We were wondering whether readers think Yingli’s move with the World Cup will push more solar players into the marketing field, and how key will that be in an industry that wants to drive down costs?

(Photo credit: Indonesian Football Association chief Nurdin Halid gestures beside the FIFA World Cup trophy in Jakarta. The trophy arrived in Jakarta in January as part of its world tour. Photo credit: Crack Palinggi / Reuters)