Joseph, Welcome to the Lake.

Josh, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Welcome Josh and Joseph.

Thanks, Bev. I’m glad to be here.

Welcome, Mr. Romm. Let’s jump right into things:

What is the most important clean energy technology we should be deploying at scale today, but aren’t?

Thanks for having me!

Welcome to Firedoglake!

On the demand side, it is a spectrum of technologies that fall under the label of energy efficiency. A number of independent studies suggest that we could reduce our emissions and generate tens of billions of dollars of savings in energy bills for consumers and businesses

Good afternoon Joseph and Josh and welcome to FDL this afternoon.

Joseph, I have not read your book. To be honest, I have an idea it would depress me way too much.

I do have a question though, rather a global one if you will – is there any hope?

Dakine:

I can understand your concern. The subject can be depressing, but I tried to deal with that by injecting a certain amount of humor and focusing as much a possible on the solutions.

I do remain hopeful, but there’s no question that we are not yet ready to take action at a scale that is necessary.

Thank you. That is an excellent question. In the book Mr. Romm writes that he wouldn’t blog if he didn’t have hope. Would you like to expand on that idea, Joseph?

I would also add that the anti-science crowd and the big polluters want us to feel disempowered, want us to disengage, so they can keep the nation and the world addicted to their.

Mr. Romm:

How do you think the ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico changes the political conversation around clean energy?

It is definitely not too late. People very much forget what we did during World War II we got very serious about redesigning our entire manufacturing system to win that great war.

Josh:

Interestingly, the public has been strongly behind a major transition to a clean energy economy and making polluters pay. The BP oil disaster makes the hidden costs of our addiction to fossil fuels something that even politicians have trouble ignoring.

So I think it has become much more likely that we will have a major energy bill — and I think we even have maybe a 50-50 chance of getting a price on carbon pollution.

Interesting. The optimist in me says Democrats will pursue that route but I’m not sure they’ll take the right lesson from the spill.

Do you think any Republicans would support pricing carbon this year, and if so, who?

Folks,

Feel free to ask Mr. Romm any questions you’d like about climate change, energy policy, clean energy and related topics. We’re fortunate to have him with us this evening.

Joseph, there are two sets of phrases I see all the time that I think are absolute BS.

“Clean Coal” and “Clean Nuclear Power”

Both phrases seem to me to be oxymorons yet many folks present them as viable alternatives going forwards in lieu of renewable energy sources.

Am I an idiot to think those phrases are a con?

Susan Collins (R-ME)has been kind of hiding behind Maria Cantwell (D-WA) but she has already endorsed a bill that would price carbon. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has also. And even Lindsey Graham (R-ME) responded to Obama’s big speech last week by saying he would support a utility cap-and-trade bill. So the only question is whether Republicans are simply going to block everything, or whether a few are willing to continue to engage.

Dakine:

Well, I think there’s no question that you can’t really make coal clean because the mining is so destructive. And right now, we are a long way from being able to capture the carbon and sequester it.

Nuclear power certainly has incredibly long-lived waste, but I think it’s biggest problem is incredibly high cost. Fundamentally, virtually no environmental impact is worse than catastrophic global warming, we do need to keep all of our carbon-free options on the table.

What is the short term potential of wind power? Do the economics work everywhere in the US or only certain regions? Did they ever solve the problem of interference with bird migration?

Thank you

Hello,

I understand that under a cap and trade scheme for pricing carbon, carbon credits will be awarded by an agency and inspectors funded by the industries trying to obtain the credits. This strikes me as very similar to the setup we have with rating agencies, banks, and mortgage backed securities. Do you see a similar conflict of interest? Aren’t the costs of these entities just going to be passed onto consumers?

I check your site climateprogress several times a day, and there is along with the bad news, a lot of good news, and hilarious slicing up of the anti science crowd.

Why did so many large advances happen so rapidly with computer chips, and why couldn’t the same thing happen with renewable energy?

Assuming that the legislators are unwilling to act?

This sounds about right to me. I also wonder if including enough support for nuclear could bring on a Judd Gregg or Lamar Alexander. It also certainly wouldn’t hurt with Lindsey Graham.

Do you think federal investments in new nuclear plants is a worthwhile trade off if it picked up two or three Republican votes in the Senate?

Well, the nuclear waste is one that definitely concerns me as it is a toxic by-product that is lethal for a longer period than humans have a recorded history.

But the cost is probably number 2 for me as there is just no way to build reactors cheaply without also making them unsafe (IMNSVHO)

Welcome Josesh and Josh — wrt to the anti-science opposition — are we making progress against the forces of darkness and lies, or are they winning? And what’s the best way to make progress?

It looks like we’ve got a few questions lined up. Let’s give Mr. Romm a chance to answer the questions from dakine01, egregious, scarecrow and mafr before asking too many addition questions.

Egregious:

wind power remains the renewable energy source with the most near-term and medium-term potential. It barely constitutes even 2% of US electricity today and the Bush administration itself is a major study saying it could be 20% by 2030 without new technology or significantly new transmission.

The economics works best in the Midwest from North Dakota down to West Texas, but the costs are coming down everywhere and if we ever start pricing carbon dioxide, the economics will get even better.

Bird migration is a problem in a few places, but wind turbine technology has gotten much better and frankly so many more birds get killed by buildings and the like that it is really not a major consideration for most wind turbine locations.

(I think you and Joseph will find we’re a patient lot here and even accept that some questions do get skipped occasionally) :})

Are there good estimates of what the “price of carbon” would have to be to have a measurable impact on the electricity dispatch merit order — how high would it have to be to push a lot of the existing coal off the margin?

Mafr:

The Main reason we haven’t seen the rapid advances in clean energy that we’ve seen in IT is lack of sustained investment over time. President Reagan cut the funding for clean energy by 70% to 90% back in the early 1980s and conservatives have blocked efforts to increase funding since then — until President Obama was elected.

But if we can’t pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation, the only good news is that the rest of the world is making major investments, especially China, so the jobs and the advances will end up there.

Lots of excellent questions coming in. Thanks, folks.

Good to know, thank you dakine01.

In the last six month we have definitely gone backwards with respect to the anti-science crowd, and the media coverage has gotten considerably worse. But I did post on Climate Progress one major success today, — a retraction and apology from a major British newspaper on a truly egregious story.

You need to have a price on carbon dioxide that is above $10 a ton and rises steadily a year to start replacing coal with natural gas. You get significant substitution of gas for coal at $20 a ton.

Remember, 15 years ago we built a whole bunch of natural gas power plants and sited and permitted then built transmission. But over half of them are not being used and so the cheapest carbon reductions you can get are to start putting natural gas into them and not putting coal into coal plants.

If you were advising Senate Democrats, how would you advise them to move forward on climate/energy legislation this summer?

Joseph, if you get a chance, I would appreciate any assessment of any of the following:

Enhanced geothermal as a possible base load replacement for coal.

A High Voltage Direct Current backbone as a way to decentralize power generation.

Organic biodiesel as a fuel for hybrids and heating.

Geothermal as a way to provide buildings with cooling in the summer and heat in the winter

Ocean Thermal Energy Converstion (OTEC)

OT, wrt the Gulf disaster, I have heard England uses oxygen barges (Bubbler and Vitality) on the Thames. Small as it is, could our US Navy use such a strategy in the Gulf to reduce the depredation of the marine life from the lack of Oxygen? (I would like to see a much, much larger committment to separator sucking up the oil water mixture.)

I agree the cost issue is the biggest near-term hurdle for nukes — I don’t believe a single US nuke owner — and they’re all huge corporations with consolidated ownership — would consider building more plants without huge federal subsidies, never mind the liability limits that have been in effect for decades.

So the question becomes: how much do we have to subsidize nukes to displace coal versus how much do we have to subsidize something else for the same displacement effect. Have such comparisons been done?

Also, in my work with electricity reginoal system operators, e.g., PJM, I’ve seen their studies and graphs showing that wind gets displaced in the early morning ramp-ups, because the nukes can’t be backed off enough during min-gen hours; so the price goes negative, and when the negative price gets low enough, the wind generators shut down because the fed subsidies can’t make up for the loses. Are you concerned about whether the wind generators can solve that problem?

Here is the story:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/20/amazon-ipcc-climategate-sunday-times-jonathan-leake-simon-lewis-apology-retraction/

You are more optimistic than I am. As we have seen on both healthcare and financial regulation, the Democrats present bad legislation and then compromise (often with themselves) to make it worse. It looks like climate change and energy legislation will be more of the same. The Congress has about a month to get anything done before the August recess and the elections after that. I don’t see them doing anything, but even if do something, it won’t be much.

This was pretty similar to my analysis of the situation until recently. The oil spill in the Gulf presents a rare opportunity for an honest conversation on energy policy. Democrats have begun to make the pivot, and while it is far from certain, they seem to finally be finding their voice on BP accountability. If accountability measures are tied with clean energy provisions, I think the Senate may in fact act this summer.

I hadn’t heard that half of gas-fired plants are unused; do you mean that the capacity factors for gas-fired plants is about 50%, which would mean they’re marginal units and only get used, on average half the time they could, in theory, be used? Or do you literally mean they’re not used at all?

Delighted You are carrying some of the renewable energy luggage for us all. Please give your thoughts on wave energy which includes rivers. FERC has permitted and mapped the locations and of proposed site. The West coast has many site that will produce energy 24/7. Wave is the most efficient producer and the cost as low as 5 cents a kilowatt.
How so we get this process speeded up the permits take a decade. Their are anunber od technologies which I can share on a power point presentation. Also their is a new near shore generator with a propeller on a shaft in a 6 foot diameter pipe that is clean and safe and actually creates reef habitat.
How can we help? I have done a study for Surfrider.

BooRadley:

I think enhanced geothermal has promised but the best research says it would take a major investment by the United States and other countries to validate the technology. We are talking drilling to very great depths and that isn’t cheap.

HVDC is certainly the way to go for bringing in large quantities of renewables, say concentrated solar thermal from the southwest.

I tend to be somewhat skeptical of biofuels right now, until we can assuredly develop low-water-use, low-arable-land-use biomass.

I am a big fan of geothermal heating and cooling, yes.

OTEC tends to have more limited applications, but then again we haven’t gotten very serious about reducing emissions. ultimately, I think we will embrace all of these ‘niche’ application at a pretty large scale.

You need 60 votes in the Senate and anti-democratic, extra-Constitutional “requirement” makes good legislation next to impossible.

Chicago Climate Exchange?

The capacity factor for even the most efficient natural gas power plants has been under 50%. Many of them are simply not being used at all.

This is exactly the kind of quantitative analysis in which I am interested. I am a little low on el fundo right now, but I have put your book on my BUY list.

How would you rate the Energy Department and Chu so far? Obama has not been pushing strong legislation, and that is always a bad sign. I would think both of these guys would be leading the eay if there was a serious push to get substantial climate change legislation passed. Instead as the weak regulation leading to the mining disaster in W. Virginia and the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf, Obama has been pushing dirty energy hard.

Not a fan of CCX these days. We need real reductions not voluntary offsets.

Mr. Romm:

What do you think about the strategy of emphasizing national security concerns to generate Republican support for clean energy legislation?

I’ve seen lots of state legislation requiring utilities to begin having certain percentages of alternative energy sourcing phased in over various time periods. This is obviously going to be easier for some utilities than other, given geographic locations (like wind corridors) but it all seems so piecemeal and, frankly, as if it is likely to be dumped as recessions and state budgets being busted etc. take hold.

Given our constant stat of politicking at the national level – how do we get a short and long term set of solutions in place and keep them in place?

I think the Energy Department and Chu have done a superlative job under difficult conditions.

But we need sustained investment in clean energy and a price for carbon — not just a big investment over two years. And that is up to Obama.

What is the story on thorium? I have seen it show up off and on for a couple of years now but it never seems to go anywhere.

Josh:

There is no question that generals and admirals and the Pentagon and the CIA all acknowledge the threat posed by unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions — not to mention the billion dollars a day we spend to buy foreign oil.

But no rational argument is going to get Republican support — the mainstream conservatives have simply decided to ensure that Obama is not seen as someone who can deliver on bipartisan solutions.

And that is up to Obama.

It seems he is able to get what he wants to, once he has made a decision.

What is constraining him at this point?

If we need a carbon price of at least $10/ton and preferably $20/ton — how good is the implicit price in any of the House/Senate bills? Are they even close? And if not now, when would they begin to bind?

Mary:

About half the states have renewable energy standards and many of them have tightened him over the years. They have been a critical reason for the explosion in the wind power and solar power in recent years.

In fact, studies suggest that almost every state could get a significant fraction of their energy resources from renewables. But many states are run by conservatives who are under the influence of big utilities and fossil fuel companies.

Mafr:

I don’t fully understand why Obama has been soft-pedaling an issue that he gets, but I expect that Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod have been crucial in downplaying the message. I have blogged on this.

Carbon taxes only work if corporations can’t evade them, or if political pressure to lower them isn’t strong enough. When are we going to start talking about an international agreement to phase out oil/ coal/ natural gas PRODUCTION? It’s hardly rational to expect people to produce fossil fuels without consuming them.

Scarecrow:

The house bill sets a floor of $10 a ton and the Senate bill has a higher floor. If a carbon price passes Congress, I would expect it to start at somewhere between $10 and $12 a ton and rise 5% real per year — and that is enough to start significant fuel switching.

Hugh:

Some people are very enthusiastic about thorium, but given how power plants are developed and certified in this country, it is at best a post-2030 solution.

When are more of the climate scientists going to start admitting that the truth about abrupt climate change is much worse than the IPCC projections? James Hansen’s proclamations about 350 ppm seem to me to be a good start to a promising trend.

What can we do on an individual basis to make a difference? Sometimes it seems as though the legislators will do whatever the PACS and big business tell them to do. It feels somewhat daunting to make a difference with Congress when it comes to the energy/climate legislation.

You might have addressed this in your book–looking forward to reading it!

Please feel free to laugh.

WRT nuclear, has NASA attempted to use the space shuttles to get nuclear waste off the planet? Obviously the cost would be probitive, but at least it would get rid of two of the intractible problems, waste and proliferation.

Now, if we could just find sufficient water to cool them.

Good point. Which Republican Senators do you think are particularly vulnerable to political pressure? It seems to me that if you can’t get them to vote for sane policy you’ve got to force them into early retirement. Surely some of them represent states that stand to benefit from in the near-term from clean energy investments.

The scenario for enacting comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year is that the Senate passes a bill this summer which combines the Lugar bill and the Bingaman bill and some items on the oil disaster — then in conference with the House immediately after the election a utility cap is brought in and the vote is taken in a lame-duck session.

I’d put this scenario at somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 2, which is a whole lot better than the chances were before the disaster.

This is a great question. I’m gladly to see someone looking at this from the individual level.

For both Joseph and Josh: I’ve seen a lot of debate within the enviro-climate change community about the merits of the various bills. And just as occurred with health care (and now financial “reform”) there’s a split between those who say X is better than nothing, and those who say X is not good enough but could be if Y were added, and those who argue we’ve lost for now, the best we can hope/work for is Z.

Where do you come out on this? And what elements do you consider essential, the litmus test issues that help non-experts think about whether we should work for or against any of the climate bills?

Wouldn’t that require significant amounts of rocket fuel, especially considering how heavy nuclear waste is?

cassiodorus

Lots of climate scientists — and research and observations — have started to make clear that the IPCC was a serious underestimation of how fast the climate is changing and the threat that is posed by unrestricted emissions.

I have an extended discussion of this in my book, “Straight Up,” which I hope you will take a look at!

FWIW, from Purdue UniversityHybrid American Chestnut Trees Are Carbon Storage Champions

Just wondered if you wanted to say anything about promising carbon sequestration strategies.

Which “Senate bill” has the “higher floor?” Kerry-Lieberman? Is it even the lead “Senate bill” anymore?

Joseph, what about wave energy? every minute of every day the moon’s gravity produces wave energy.Usually there is wind in that environment and close to grids.

Dr. Romm, thanks for your work skewering the climate change deniers and for joining us at FDL today.

In 2008 you elegantly described for Nature Reports Climate Change your objections to cap and trade. In rejecting Cap’n Trade, you appeared to be in good company: James Hansen also warns us cap and trade will fail.

As is typical of most climate legislation now being proposed, America’s Climate Security Act, which recently went before the US Senate, aimed at reining in greenhouse gas emissions primarily by setting a price on carbon dioxide. Although hailed as landmark legislation, the proposal, which died after it failed to muster close to the required 60 votes, would not have put the nation on the path required to help avert catastrophic climate change.
Cleaning up on carbon

Climate policy must focus on the rapid deployment of existing clean technologies on large scales, such as the installation of 1 million 2-megawatt wind turbines.

GETTY

The proposed act, also known as the Boxer–Lieberman–Warner Bill after its lead sponsors, sought to regulate carbon dioxide by setting a legal limit or cap on emissions and allowing emitters to trade their carbon allowances or quotas on a national market. Through a variety of cost containment measures, it would have enabled polluters to avoid cutting their own emissions now, instead allowing them to offset up to 30 per cent of their emissions allowances against other — mostly non-energy-related — projects and to borrow as much as 23 per cent of any year’s emissions from the future, with the promise of making equal or greater reductions later.

But the science has already moved far past the legislation. It is now clear that we can no longer base our efforts to tackle climate change on hopes of reducing our own emissions at some point in the future or on letting others reduce emissions for us…..

This suggests that if we want to avoid dangerous warming — and maintain the option of keeping the temperature increase even lower than 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures — then climate legislation needs to be refocused on immediate action. The current emphasis is on spending years putting in place a cap-and-trade system with myriad cost containment provisions in the hope that it will ultimately lead by the 2020s to setting a price for carbon that will get us onto the right path in terms of technology and emissions.

The limits of a strategy built around carbon pricing can be seen in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, the world’s largest system for pricing carbon and trading permits. A full decade after signing the Kyoto Protocol, European nations finally have in place a cap-and-trade system with a significant price for allowances, namely US$40 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. Yet utilities in Italy, Great Britain, the Czech Republic and Germany are reported to still be pursuing new coal-fired plants4, so we must clearly go beyond pricing carbon. The United States simply cannot wait another decade to find out whether domestic cap-and-trade legislation will drive carbon dioxide to a high enough price to curb emissions growth sharply.

We already know the most urgent strategies needed to stop emissions from rising — a prohibition on new traditional coal-fired plants, and the use of low-carbon technologies for all new power provision. So why should we not simply require that legislation focus directly on those outcomes? Industrialized nations should directly adopt legislation requiring all new coal power plants to meet an ‘emission performance’ standard that limits their output of carbon dioxide to levels that are achievable with carbon capture and storage systems. Until wealthy nations take this step and show that it can work, developing countries will not be encouraged to do so — and without such action it is difficult to see how we will escape the current trajectory of escalating global emissions

The current Kerry-Lieberman climate/energy bill not only relies upon cap and trade, but also explicitly rescinds the EPA’s extant power to regulate carbon dioxide/GHG emissions from coal fired-power plants.

The EPA power the K-L bill seeks to destroy appears to be as near as current law gets to giving EPA the power to stop new coal fired power plants: that power appears to be what you called for in 2008.

Of course, the K-L bill also squanders billions that could otherwise be used to support conversion of the US economy to the most caost-effective alternatives to carbon-based energy (if I understand AMory Lovins correctly, the leading contenders for the transition are negawatts, wind, and various forms of solar including thermal baseload solar).

Now it’s 2010, and the Democratic administration appears to want a climate/energy bill. Congressional Dems seem to be making some efforts to hatch out a bill (though the feckless Harry Reid may be asking Cap’n Trade to walk the plank). The Administraion’s strong supporter John Podesta seems to have (or have had) a powerful role at Center For American Progress.

The background above forms the basis for the following questions:

(1) Has your opinion on the usefulness of cap and trade cahnged since 2008? If so, could you help us follow any new scientific developments that may have contributed to changing your previous conclusions about cap and trade?

(2) Knowing that the current climate/energy bill removes the EPA’s current power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, do you wish to see the current climate/energy bill pass, or fail?

(3) Is the Climate Progress site associated with Center For American Progress, Podesta, or any other Podesta-founded/directed enterprises? If so – and if it should be that you currently support the K-L climate bill – have political considerations played a role in what would then appear to be a reversal of your 2008 rejection of cap and trade?

While it is easy to deem the current bills on the table as inadequate, at the end of the day, I’ll support anything that moves the ball forward. In the meantime though, as the package is being pieced together, there is some strategic value in having certain Senators and/or pressure groups draw bright lines in the sand and credibly threaten to walk away. As we saw in the healthcare fight, sometimes being the Senator willing to bail on negotiations makes you the Senator with the power to influence the bill. It is a fine line, and one of the reasons passing something this year will be so difficult.

With that being said, I’d have a hard time throwing my full support behind something that expanded offshore drilling or made major investments in ‘clean coal.’ Obviously, I’m a bit conflicted about this.

To follow somewhat along Hugh’s lines with the Energy Dept, how would you rate NOAA under Lubchenco? I was initially optimistic about her, but am increasingly viewing her tenure there as wan at best.

unfortunately, I’m not certain very many Republicans at all are vulnerable to pressure. The only possible ones are the Maine women I think, and I can assure you that their positions are quite unpopular — but the state GOP has been partly captured by the Tea Party, and that makes it difficult to move them.

I think there will be no Republican votes for a climate bill, unless it’s called a Republican bill, and even then . . . No Republican will risk voting for any meaningful Dem bill before the elections, and especially not one that seems to affirm climate science. How do we overcome that solid resistance?

Do you know of any groups that look at how many joules or BTUs the US uses, how many of these are carbon dependent, how many can be replaced by non carbon sources, how much of those could come from renewables and then factor in population increase and increased per capita energy use, you know to see if in fact there is a way to make the numbers work out in a long term fashion?

Mr. Romm: what is your reaction to some officials down here in the Southeast who say an across-the-board carbon tax would be unfair to us because the wind doesn’t blow and the ground isn’t suited for carbon sequestering (which itself is dubious). Seems like BS to me in the “sunshine state” where solar should be exploited.

It seems to me that significant amounts of saved energy could be attained with minor changes to simple things like building codes and consumer electronics certifications.

Things like mandating timed switches for lights, hard limits on vampire power (the amount of drain a device can consume when it’s “off”), manufacture of LED only lightbulbs, etc.

This is a field that so broad and complex, and which we’re failing miserably at on almost all fronts, that I’d suspect there are probably massive gains to be made in making small shifts while we’re figuring out the broader vision for the future. They’re probably not as gratifying as an overhaul, but they seem attainable and possibly still effective.

bigbrother:

Wave power right now is quite expensive and only works in limited areas. Someday when we are spending 10 times as much on all forms of low carbon power, some will no doubt become big. But I would still place my bets on wind power and geothermal and solar PV and concentrated solar thermal.

This is a new one to me! Perhaps Mr. Romm has heard otherwise, but I’m not familiar with any efforts along these lines. Seems like an awful lot of trouble when there are truly clean sources of energy available to us right now.

Thanks for all of the great questions everyone. We’ve got several good ones lined up for the moment, so please hold your questions for just a few minutes.

Mr. Romm,

Thanks for coming.

How important is implementing the smart grid as part of our overall energy solution?

Will this allow clean energy technology that scales well for individual households/communities to grow?

TIA

I think the only real chance to do so this year is with an energy only bill (no carbon price) that is called the BP Accountability Act. Take advantage of the public’s anger about BP’s spill and pivot to turn that anger into support for a bill.

Make Republicans choose BP’s profits over energy independence as the oil continues to spill. Some might fold.

More on this here: http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/15/obama-speech-energy-climate-bill/

Also, let’s not ignore the food angle here. When I ran the math a few years ago, from just the number of Americans who were 100+ pounds overweight there was enough stored energy in their fat cells to meet the energy demands of the whole planet for almost an hour, or the entire nation of Somalia for a decade.

Consider the incredible amount of energy it takes to produce each pound of human fat, and you can see our environmental crisis hanging off the front and back of over two-thirds of Americans when you’re out and about.

Kirk:

I have never rejected “cap-and-trade.” What mechanism is used to create a rising price for CO2 is really secondary. It just so happens that a shrinking cap and a rising price has been the only politically tenable approach. The extremists in the conservative movement have demagogued it as if it were not a centrist, market-oriented approach. I am well known for disagreeing with Hansen on this, much as I have the greatest respect in the world for him as a climate scientist.

I very much want Kerry-Lieberman to pass in some form. The EPA will never be able to do as much as even modest legislation. I have no idea what your question #3 means. CP is a projected of the Center for American Progress Action Fund as any visitor can tell.

A little good news, interconnected, multi-modal transit enjoys strong support in the comments in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The wingnuts get hammered everytime they derisively post “choo, choo.”

A new meaning for solyent green?

reddflagg

There have been many studies done by groups in the Southeast revealing the huge potential for solar and biomass and other renewables plus energy efficiency to provide a large fraction of the power the regions needs.

Overconsumption of food in the United States is certainly a factor, but I bet our meat-intensive diets have a larger CO2 footprint than overeating. The use of fossil fuels in fertilizers is also a huge problem.

Welcome Mr. Romm, and thanks Josh for hosting.

Why do you think it’s necessary to address issues like climate change in these “comprehensive” Frankenbills?

As far as I can tell, they are generally structured in this way so they can jam as much looting into them as possible. And we never get the chance to debate the wisdom of the giveaways that, say, the coal industry is lobbying furiously for, because they’re safely stashed in the middle of some 2000 page omnibus. It’s extraordinarily anti-transparent.

Then we’re then told that it’s “better than nothing.” But how would we really know? Who sits down and games everything out, and comes up with the conclusion that this is true?

I’ve met approximately zero wonks who accurately predicted what would happen upon passage of the health care bill. They may understand health care policy but they do not understand politics. I’m hoping that the situation is different with climate change.

GlenJo

I think there is little question that the existing electric grid is wholly inadequate for sustaining the kind of renewables and efficiency and plug-in hybrids that are needed for a low carbon future.

Jane:

You cannot get a shrinking cap and a rising price on CO2 without making a major effort to reduce the impact on key fossil fuel industries. That is U.S. politics. One can complain about it, but you can’t realistically do anything about it.

Team Obama screwed up the messaging on health care and I can assure you that many people predicted that would happen, such as Drew Weston, whom I have great respect for.

I spend a lot of my time on my blog trying to explain why setting a price on carbon and jumpstarting the transition to clean energy economy is infinitely more important than doing nothing. I also try to disabuse people of the notion that the EPA would use its authority to substantially reduce emissions at existing power plants.

Now, entirely possible that Congress will pass a bill that is only marginally better than nothing. The key dividing line is whether a bill creates a rising price for carbon and comes close to meeting president Obama’s pledge that he talk to Copenhagen for a 17% reduction by 2020.

It’s really quite atrocious. There’s actually better research on both the overweight demographics of Americans, and estimates on how much energy it takes to produce the calories that create a pound of human fat.

When things settle down with work I’m going to update my previous findings with data that’s newer than 2004, and also include trending information, and probably post it here.

I don’t doubt it, but that’s all part of the calculation on how much energy is spent producing the calories that become the fat.

Joe:

How would you grade the first year and a half of Obama’s Presidency on energy/climate policy?

Ouch! That reminds me of the thermo prof I had in college that thought he could eat whatever he wanted if he took an ice water bath for ten minutes each day – then he remembered that food calories are ALWAYS actually kilocalories (and a ten thousand minute bath in ice water).

There is definitely something to this. I’ve often lamented the christmas tree approach (pile on ornaments and hope it doesn’t topple over) that Democrats keep using on climate policy. I sometimes think we’d be better off with a series of small wins on clean energy and efficiency, which would at least give the impression of building momentum.

As far as who games out whether a bill is worth it or not, every environmental group does this in their own way. Some groups have considerably higher standards than others, of course.

Josh:

I would give them an incomplete, with very little possibility of achieving better than a B at this point.

If they can’t get even a utility cap this year, then it’s probably a D or lower.

To our dismay at FDL in Obamacare, Bart Stupak and a few other anti-choice Democrats made choice a lot more expensive for middle class and poor women.

Are there ten Congressional Reps in your opinion who have the same steel in their spine about climate change that Stupak had about anti-choice? If not is there a plan to get them elected?

Thanks for your answer and for your work, and for the oportunity explain question #3.

I may have misunderstood, but the bolded section quoted from your 2008 article in Nature does not appear to freflect a belief that cap and trade is a viable mechanism to averting global warming in the few years remaining to us to do so.

“The United States simply cannot wait another decade to find out whether domestic cap-and-trade legislation will drive carbon dioxide to a high enough price to curb emissions growth sharply.”

None of the Senate language appears to offer anything stronger than the domestic cap and trade legislation you found inadequate two years ago. If there is new science that’s altered your 2008 conclusion, I’d be grateful for the chance to learn what it may be.

With the Democratic President’s strong supporter John Podesta having played a critical role at CAP, is it possible what appears to be a reversal in your 2008 position regarding the utility of cap’n trade reflects conformity with the political objectives of this Democartic adminstration and its powerful supporters, rather than refelcting an intrinsic increase over the last two years in cap and trade’s power to avert global warming.

In other words – save for the party in power in the White house, what aspect(s) of the technical concerns you ably set forth in your 2008 Nature article has sufficiently changed to obviate the objections you set forth to cap and trade?

EdwardTeller had a great question earlier:

“To follow somewhat along Hugh’s lines with the Energy Dept, how would you rate NOAA under Lubchenco?”

Josh:

Well, we had a major series of successes with the recovery act and Obama’s budget. But there isn’t any support anymore for unpaid for programs. So right now we could pass an energy-only bill but if we can’t get a price on carbon this year, it could be a very, very long time.

A big plus for non carbon energy is the balance of payment reduction to the GDP. The sovereign fund payments will be lowered and oil wars will not be as investor attractive. That reduces cost from war that is used to procure oil and $70 to $200.00 a barrel it will cost as peak oil gets harder to get.

That is the scariest thing to me about the political situation. Democrats have the biggest majorities they’re likely to have in Congress for another decade or two, and they still can’t seem to address the problem.

I’m glad you read that article, but I’ve written a lot more since then.

If we want to solve the climate problem ourselves then yes we need to do a lot more than what you see in any of the legislation in Congress. That is obvious.

But the question at hand is whether one should support existing legislation or do nothing — since for better or worse I don’t get to write climate legislation.

If you read my blog or my book, I think I explained myself at great length here. If we aren’t going to adopt an aggressive deployment strategy starting now, then we have to create the conditions whereby the next generation has a serious chance of doing so. And that requires a shrinking cap on carbon and a rising price.

Feel free to keep asking questions everyone. We’ve got Mr. Romm with us for another half an hour or so.

Isn’t the way to pay for energy efficiency/renewables to repeal existing subsidies for oil/gas and coal, etc? Seems to me it would be worth doing just for the political advantage — and it does represent the real choice, doesn’t it: here are two futures — choose which you want to fund.

Excellent point.

Well, NOAA can’t really do very much, since it isn’t even a stand-alone agency and it doesn’t control this administration’s message on climate.

I was very disappointed that Obama didn’t participate in the event rolling out the climate impacts study a year ago with Lubchenco. But that isn’t NOAA’s fault.

I’m a tad disappointed with her on the BP oil disaster, but I suppose debate I would give her a B.

Scarecrow:

Yes, it would be great if there were the political will to reduce subsidies for oil and gas and coal. Obama has pressed for it, but in the end you still need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. If we can’t do it this year, it’s hard to see doing this for quite some time.

Can’t, or won’t?

Joe:

In your book and on your blog you often critique media coverage of climate change. Are there any reporters you think are especially good on the issue?

Can’t. Leadership wants to pass something this year — that is certain. A few oil/coal-patch Dems and the entire GOP won’t let them.

Josh:

I think there are lots of very good reporters. Elizabeth Kolbert is one of the obvious examples. Eric Pooley also comes to mind, and the AP’s Seth Borenstein. Time magazine in general has had very strong coveragea. One of the places that has really been unsung is National Geographic, which has yet another great story this month Greenland.

I’d think this would be devastating without a plan to migrate to substitutable goods that’s being acted on beforehand.

The reason those subsidies exist is purportedly to make the products cheaper for us, and while raising their prices would create a lot of strife, and bring some focus onto the problem, the fastest way to alleviate it is to reinstate the subsidies. Inducing that kind of pain without a thorough operational alternative seems like a measure for extreme chaos, and a fast track right back to the status quo.

???

The subsidies have to go, but it doesn’t seem like they can go first without really putting the screws to the stability of every single American.

What is the basic problem with most media coverage of climate change? Why do reporters often get the story so wrong?

Mr. Romm, storage technologies appear to be a bottleneck for wind and solar. Is there anything you want to say on the trajectory of those technologies?

Are Fuel cells finally getting ready for prime time or is that more hype?

A wave farm near shore can produce a mega watt on a quarter acre footprint. Is that to small when scaled to consider significant?

Josh:

there are now multiple problems with coverage. First, the media has returned to the false balance he-said/she-said narrative that equate a few well-debunked disinformers with literally thousands of scientists and the entire scientific literature. Second, the media has been firing their science and environmental reporters, so much of the coverage is exceedingly ill-informed. Third, the media has a false narrative that scientists have been overstating likely climate impacts, rather than understating them, which is the real truth. So they glom onto any story that fits their narrative, no matter how dubious. Finally, they simply don’t make the climate connection to impacts like the bark beetles and extreme weather, so the public doesn’t get to see the real impact of climate change today.

I’ve been looking at the Honda fuel-cell powered car, as well as several fuel-cell powered consumer devices, and from what I can tell… fuel-cells are here.

They’re at least as practical as Lithium-Ion battery driven devices for all but the most miniature uses.

Given the various problems surrounding battery technology (toxicity of production, reliance on scarcer elements, degrading performance, limited recyclability, and the fact that generating the power to charge them still comes from dirty sources) I’ve been hoping to see fuel-cells gain momentum in place of traditional electric.

Any sign Obama is getting serious about green tech? Denmark is going all out with electric cars.

Minimum of $40k in Tax Breaks
It looks like Denmark is going to be an testing ground and incubator for electric cars and the related technologies and policies. And they’re not going half-way: $40,000 minimum tax breaks, free parking in downtown Copenhagen, and a $100 million partnership between Dong Energy, the country’s biggest power company, and Better Place to install charging stations and battery swap stations

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/denmark-electric-cars-tax-breaks-better-place-copenhagen.php

Point taken about the power to write legislation Dr. Romm: wish we could write the Senate/House legislation waaay away from K Street and the Village.

But since we can’t, we do indeed seem to face the choice of seeing the current bill tank or pass.

Right now the EPA has the power to regulate carbon emissions from stationary coal-fired plants (and since they get really lousy mileage, I don’t think we have to worry about mobile plants *g*).

The proposed climate/energy legislation appears to rescind that power – a power the Supreme Court only recently confirmed.

So if we’re stuck with a “take or leave it” approach to the current bill, can you help me find in that legislation the certain power to regualte carbon emissions from coal-fired plants that would equal (or even exceed) the power the legislation strips from EPA.

If nothing in the current bill confers powers equal to/greater than the EPA’s current Supremes-approved power, what is the net benefit for the climate in the Democrats’ unilateral abdication of the EPA’s existing power?

Here’s the latest sign that the next-generation battery business is just really tough for startups: On Friday and over the weekend local Illinois media reported that Peoria, Illinois-based battery startup Firefly Energy has stopped operating. Specifically The Peoria Journal Star reported on Friday that Firefly Energy had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and that the city of Peoria and Peoria County plan to follow legal action to recover $6 million in government loans that they gave the startup in 2007 (the Associated Press also reported the story). On Saturday the Peoria Journal Star also reported that while Firefly Energy is clearly not operating anymore, there is some confusion about whether the company has officially filed for bankruptcy yet.

Regardless of the details of the bankruptcy, Firefly Energy, which was developing cutting-edge lead-acid battery technology based on carbon graphite foam for commercial and military electric vehicles, just couldn’t make the economics work. Imara, a startup that had been working on small-format batteries for power tools and outdoor equipment with the goal of eventually producing vehicle batteries, also shut down in December after it did not get the funding necessary to move forward. We’ve reached out to Firefly to get the details of the company’s operations and will update this when we know more.

http://earth2tech.com/2010/03/15/latest-battery-startup-shutdown-firefly-energy/

Why did Obama let this tech die?

Boo:

storage technologies are improving and I think that plug-in hybrids will create a huge amount of storage capacity for wind. In my book I talk about concentrated solar thermal power, which allows for very easy storage. I don’t really think that storage will be a bottleneck — we have a long way to go before we have renewables capacity that is going to require lots of storage, especially given the possibility of making hybrid plants with natural gas and the growing use of demand response.

Is the WH going to announce something or let the Free Markets do it all…as every other government backs their fuel cell tech to the hilt.

Nathan:

I have written an entire book debunking the hype about hydrogen. I think there is very little chance any readers of FireDogLake will be purchasing a hydrogen fuel cell car. For the foreseeable future, they will be a prohibitively expensive climate solution.

Stationary fuel cells make a bit more sense, but they have proven to be quite expensive. They are also not a game changer in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.

Whats the impact of all the dead algae and seaweed in the gulf thanks to the BP spill less plants producing Oxygen more global warming does anyone have numbers on this? How much does this effect climate models on global warming?

Things:

Companies fail for many reasons. You have to know their technology and their management and their competitors before you can know whether their failure was self-inflicted or not. DOE has had a huge amount of money for battery technologies, so I suspect they gave as much money as they could do the most promising U.S. companies.

I had a very small role in evaluating Solar One bids (I was a very young pup at the time) and storage technology was a big problem.

Wouldn’t using a smart grid technology allow home owners to implement solar PV and avoid storage issues?

kirk — the issue has been batted around a lot in the enviro blogs — one view by Dave Roberts tries to compare what we get in bill X which limits EPA authority over CO2 and what we get with no bill, but keeping EPA. He concludes it’s close but overall said bill x would be preferable. Others disagree. Main litmus test is whether x gives you a foundation for genuine caps and carbon price, one way or another. If neither survives, there’s little support for stripping EPA, from what I’m reading; but if they prematurely strip EPA — as Lisa Murkowski tried to do (and lost!) then it’s hard to get anything. It’s clearly worthwhile leverage.

Where do you stand in the debate over using natural gas to fuel large trucks and buses? Do you think it is a useful near-term strategy to reduce oil use?

Things:

Very few other countries seem to be placing a very large bet on fuel cells. They TALK about doing so, but nobody’s done it yet and I don’t expect that they will. The cars simply aren’t likely to be winners with consumers — or environmentalists.

Hydrnol is an organic chemical ‘carrier’ for hydrogen transportation and storage. It is a recyclable, rechargeable, organic molecule that carries hydrogen, which is released on demand through an onboard reactor. It is liquid over a wide temperature range, and its safety is comparable to that of gasoline and diesel.
According to Vision, Hydrnol can be transported via pipelines and tanker trucks, stored at ambient temperature, and unpressurized. It can provide hydrogen to both fuel cell cars and trucks at commercially viable prices.
Vision Industries said that Hydrnol allows its trucks to carry 110KG of hydrogen in an easy to handle liquid format, providing up to 1,100 miles in drayage application or a 650 mile range at highway speeds. The hydrogen is released from the Hydrnol by way of an on board reactor. The spent fuel is directed to an onboard spent fuel reservoir, where it can be pumped out, taken to a centralized plant, and reloaded with Hydrogen at a more effective cost.

http://www.automotive-business-review.com/news/vision_teams_up_with_asemblon_to_sell_hydrnol_for_fleet_fueling_100525

What do you think of this tech?

Some carbon energy producers in Northern Europe have stack cleaning that sequesters the carbon for reuse making emmission cleaner in wastewater treatment and other infrastructure. And carbon sinks removal. Why not invite the more progressive groups that have technology in place to advise congress.

Josh:

Some people are big fans of using natural gas to run large trucks and buses. I’m not opposed to it, but it just isn’t a big enough GHG solution for me to get terribly excited about.

Bigbrother:

I think we’re still a ways away from significant sequestration capability. I support RD&D but I would not expect substantial deployment until we have a very high price for carbon and have done a great deal more work.

Its cheaper than Lithium and our battery makers can mass produce them now. With windmills to power them I think they would be great for farm tractors. I bet the Japanese will buy their patents.

Wave energy???

s there anyplace I can go to find an assessment of the impact of ten dollars a ton, and so on, on the average person?

What goes up, how much, etc?

That sounds like a diary all by itself:) The coal companies would love it.

Tidal wave energy plants?

$14 a ton of CO2 would raise gasoline prices about 12.5 cents and have a very modest impact on electricity prices.

What do you think about the plan for high speed rail the administration rolled out last year? Do you think it is a sufficient effort or did it fall short of what we should be doing?

I think there are a host of renewable energy technologies that will contribute to the solution, but the big dogs are concentrated solar thermal, wind, PV, and probably biomass. I do think the geothermal and the ocean-based energy sources will be big contributors, especially post-2030.

Thanks for addressing the question!

The EPA’s extant power has survived the Roberts Supreme Court. I’m curious to know how David Roberts or others urging us to support surrendering the power the EPA has in the hand can be 100% certain that whatever they assert will replace the surrendered real power we now have would pass a future Supreme Court challenge.

If those advocating trading away the EPA’s power now in hand can’t give us 100% certainty the replacement powers yet to be enacted would pass the Roberts Court, I’m at a loss why they expect their risk-benefit assurances to be persuasive.

High-speed rail is quite expensive and unlikely to be truly profitable on a large scale until peak oil really kicks in.

When oil is sustained above $150 a barrel, the airline industry as we know it today will change dramatically. At $200 a barrel and higher, air travel will become increasingly uncompetitive and high-speed rail is the most obvious alternative.

As we come to the end of this lively Book Salon,

Joseph, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and climate change.

Josh, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you would like more information, here is Joseph’s website, and Josh’s website.

Thanks all.

Kirk:

NOBODY urges surrendering EPA power. The question is what would one be willing to do as part of an overall deal.

But I have spoken to a very senior people at EPA and they are not going to use that authority to shut down existing coal plants, so people need to stop pretending that they will. Indeed, it would be a legal nightmare that would take many years to play out to try to do so.

EPA authority as a climate solution also assumes that Democrats control the presidency for the foreseeable future.

EPA authority is NOT the basis for international climate deal.

So while it would be great to keep EPA authority, the fact is that it would be infinitely superior to pass legislation creating a shrinking cap on carbon and a rising price.

Thank you Bev.

And a big thanks to Joseph Romm for joining us today. I had a great time and learned several things today. I hope others had a similar experience.

If that’s the economic tragectory, then it would seem wise to make foundation investments now, when it’s still cheap, because it will take a decade or more to get a decent rail system in place. How do we get people/politicians to think of the economics in terms of decades, not just today?

Joseph, Jane Hamsher made the point once here that Nader voters (the left that Rahm Emanuel is happy to write off) actually do matter — obviously did matter, in that they get the blame for Gore losing the 2000 election. I had an idea the other week (long comment in Seminal diary Down the Toilet that I can’t access right now, extremely impaired connection), that people write in a “natural person”, as opposed to a “corporate person” in the next election — write in a whale or the Gulf of Mexico or some other natural body. Point being for the voiceless to speak up and have to be listened to. Give an answer to a question that will not be asked by either party. I actually want to tie two ideas together, politics and justice — “Vote for a whale, send Tony to jail.” What do you think?

Thanks to Joe and Josh for spending the time with us.

Buy the book, everyone!

Many thanks to you Josh and to Mr. Romm. A terrific and very informative chat.

Indeed. To repeat what I said above, it is the best primer on climate change I’ve seen, and I’ve read several.

http://www.amazon.com/Straight-Up-Americas-Politicians-Solutions/dp/1597267163

Thank you for addressing the question and for enlightening us about the EPA’s intentions!

Thanks also for joining us here at FDL – and thanks to Josh for hosting and to Bev for her hard work in making the Book Salons possible.

Here’s some pie in the sky dreaming:

Push for better funding for Amtrak with high speed rail lines running north/south on both coasts. Pay for it with a gas/jet fuel tax.

Time delays due to airport hassles make end to end travel times comparable.

Thanks very much to Messrs. Nelson, and Romm, and all of you.

I will buy the book.

Thank you, Joe and Josh.

I’ve given her a c-minus. Thanks for your time, your book and your wonderful blog!

Dear Joseph Romm et al.

I don’t see how any of what you’re advocating is radical enough to deal with abrupt climate change sufficiently to get to the 350 ppm necessary to avert the worst of it, and having read Mark Lynas’ “Six Degrees (review here), I have a fair notion of what that would be.

Here on FDL Jane Hamsher has spelled out in great detail how environmentalism is no longer about the environment, but rather about saving the careers of environmentalists while they languish in the Veal Pen and support ineffective Dems against insane Reps. The Sierra Club, for instance, is the recipient of donations from BP.

I think the problem boils down to a conflict between the growth imperative of the capitalist system and the survival needs of Earth’s ecosystems. There is simply no way that the owners of Earth’s fossil fuel reserves are going allow a prohibition upon their development, not under a capitalist accounting of “opportunity costs.” A “carbon tax” is not going to prevent it, not under a system of “laissez-faire” capitalism in which the corporations can simply move their businesses to areas outside of the carbon tax should the carbon tax be onerous enough. I don’t see anyone addressing this problem here.

I rather suspect that, as the environmental costs of increasingly dirty fossil fuels compound themselves and as the total availability of fossil fuels decreases, you might see some sort of “alternative energy” develop, but more likely what you’re going to see is a series of further convulsions to the economic system as the choice between “dirty growth” and “clean depression” becomes more and more onerous. In light of this projected future, I tend to prefer the path recommended by Saral Sarkar in Eco-socialism or Eco-capitalism? — an orderly retreat from the compulsion to “growth” toward a conserver society in which everyone is given the tools to meet their basic survival needs.

I don’t see why any of you think you’re going to get anything more out of Congress than the “baby steps” promised by the existing bills, not without a set of demands which would have to be significantly more severe than what I’ve seen on the table so far. We need to pull the public mindset out of the capitalist Disneyland it’s currently in, and fast. Have any of you read Petit et al., and noticed that if its statistics are in fact accurate we are due for a much higher increase in average temperatures than anyone has been willing to admit?

At any rate, thanks to Joseph Romm for coming and talking to us.

Correct. Wave energy is created by swells enhanced by wind. The near shore technology is viable at 5 cents a Kw according to PG&E rep I spoke with earlier this week. Making alternative a profitable bottom line is part of the investment goals, More capital comes to the table creates momentum and competition.

Phoenix Woman is upstairs!
UK, US Tories and their Media Circle their Wagons to Protect BP

Cassiodorus, if you happen to return, you described eco-capitalism in your diary:

By “eco-capitalism” I mean the predominant form of environmental action insofar as it appeals mainly to business to “greenify” its environmental practices, while at the same time continuing to do what it does. “Eco-capitalism,” by this broad definition, has its own discourse: the discourse of “sustainable development.” The idea behind such a concept is that “development” is sustainable indefinitely as long as its planning elites think cursorily about “sustainability.”

And from the book by Saral Sarkar “Eco-socialism or Eco-capitalism?”

I reject eco-capitalism, not only because it cannot function, but also and mainly because of the values capitalism represents: exploitation, brutal competition, worship of mammon, profit and greed as motive. And I am for socialism mainly because of the values it represents: equality, co-operation, solidarity. Freedom and democracy are compatible with these values, although they did not exist in the “socialist” regimes we have experienced up to now, but they are not compatible with the values of capitalism, especially not with inequality in wealth in power.”

As with so many other issues, the United States seems to have lost the “moral authority” regarding the environment. Is it more likely that eco-socialism might evolve from other countries and at some point the United States is “forced” to change?

Siun is upstairs…
From Bloody Sunday to Gaza, Justice Matters

I am hoping for this.

Great questions!