Thursday, Nov 30

DOE Approves Long-Delayed New England Infrastructure and Clean Energy Project

On Nov 16, 2017, the Department of Energy issued a Record of Decision and approved the Presidential permit for the proposed Northern Pass Transmission Line project.  The 192-mile above and below ground, alternating and direct current transmission system will deliver up to 1090 megawatts of low-emission, reliable hydropower from Quebec, Canada to Deerfield, New Hampshire while creating jobs, lowering energy costs, and reducing the carbon footprint across New England.

Since it was first proposed in 2010, the $1.6 billion Northern Pass project has been subject to multiple layers of federal and state government permitting regulations, a nearly 4,000 page Environmental Impact Statement, and adjusted its planned route in response to input from local communities as well as federal and state permitting agencies.  The approval of Presidential permit PP-371 allows the Northern Pass Transmission Line project to cross the international border and connect into the U.S. grid.  Northern Pass’s construction of the line is expected to begin as early as April of 2018, pending approval by the State of New Hampshire’s Site Evaluation Committee.

Read more at DOE Approves Long-Delayed New England Infrastructure and Clean Energy Project

If We Want to Breathe Clean Air, Shutting Nuclear Plants Early Is Insanity - by Milton Caplan

People are dying.  Lots of people, each and every day.  As stated in a study published by Lancet on October 19, “Pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and premature death in the world today.”

The study continued, “Diseases caused by pollution were responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths in 2015—16% of all deaths worldwide—three times more deaths than from AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined and 15 times more than from all wars and other forms of violence.”  And to make matters even worse, it continues, “In the most severely affected countries, pollution-related disease is responsible for more than one death in four.”  (Note: James Conca wrote an excellent article following the release of the Lancet paper).

Earlier this month authorities in New Delhi took a decision to spray water over the capital to fight toxic dust in the air.  It’s hard to imagine having to take such extreme action just so people can breathe.

And yet, we seem to want to make it worse, not better, by supporting the early shut down of safe, reliable, and of most importance, CLEAN, nuclear power plants.  Nothing can be more foolish than removing low carbon, non-polluting generating plants from the generation mix when the replacements are almost always dirtier fossil fueled generation.  These nuclear plants still have years of useful life left and are operating safely as clearly evidenced by the regulators who are giving them licenses to operate in their respective countries.

This is sometimes based on local economics such as in the United States, where low cost gas is making nuclear uneconomic in some de-regulated states.  But of more importance, it is more often a result of made-in-the-past anti-nuclear sentiment.  In Germany, shutting nuclear early is accepted as more important than reducing carbon emissions even as new dirty lignite mines are opened to replace them.  In Japan the slow return to service of nuclear plants following the 2011 accident at Fukushima is not only causing an increase in fossil usage but there are now plans to build more than 20 new coal plants.  The previous French government decided to close its oldest two nuclear units early, even though they are licensed for another 10 years, and set a target to reduce the share of nuclear going forward when there is no clear option to replace them.

In Korea, even though a large public review approved the completion of two partially built plants, the Korean government has cancelled further new build plans, and of more importance, is against extending the lives of existing operating units wanting to replace them with a combination of renewables and gas.  They are also on the verge of closing Wolsong 1, their oldest operating plant even though its recent complete refurbishment has made it operable for another 30 years and frankly, makes its components the newest of the four operating CANDU type units on that site.   In the United States, California has decided not to extend the life of Diablo Canyon, claiming it can replace these units with renewables and demand management.  In Belgium, there are plans to retire their units without life extension, etc, etc, and the list goes on.

As for the argument on economics, let’s remember that nuclear plants have very low operating costs due to the low cost of fuel.  However, in some jurisdictions, mostly in the US, low gas prices and subsidized renewables make these plants less economic for now.  Since in all cases, they would be replaced by fossil generation (with some renewable component), the replacements will increase both pollution and carbon emissions and if we include the cost to build new plants, then even with low fossil fuel prices, this new fossil generation will not be more economic than existing nuclear.

Many governments have started to see the reality of the situation.  That is why the fight is on and in many countries efforts are underway to save these reliable non-emitting plants.  In the US, a number of states including New York, Illinois and Connecticut are working to keep plants open and there is a federal initiative to support nuclear plants as a result of their “resilience” (a topic for another day).  In Sweden there is support for extending the lives of existing units and recently the French government has decided to slow its plans to reduce its share of nuclear.

Read more at If We Want to Breathe Clean Air, Shutting Nuclear Plants Early Is Insanity

China’s EV Plan Could Cause an Oil Price Crash

“I think down the road, this whole electrification which is a big issue in 2018 will really kick off,” Jakobsen, who is known for making bold predictions, told The National in a phone interview.

“The reason I think it will be big is that the single biggest issue in China is pollution and a way to deal with it is to get electric cars.  On top of that, India has a similar problem,” Jakobsen noted.

Earlier this year, China and India unveiled plans to dramatically accelerate the adoption of EVs, which has prompted the IEA to take notice and promise a review of its long-term oil demand forecast.

Also this year, the EVs market became crowded with Tesla’s new unveils, along with the legacy automakers and truck makers who announced big investments and shifts to more electric car production—including Ford and GM.  Earlier this month, Ford signed a deal in China to establish the 50/50 joint venture Zotye Ford Automobile Co Ltd that will offer a range of stylish and affordable all-electric vehicles for consumers in China.

Read more at China’s EV Plan Could Cause an Oil Price Crash

Washington Agency Votes to Reject Vancouver Energy’s Massive Oil-by-Rail Terminal

In another major blow to the West Coast oil-by-rail industry, a Washington state agency voted unanimously to recommend Governor Jay Inslee reject the Vancouver Energy oil terminal.  Proposed for construction in Vancouver, Washington, along the Columbia River, it would be the largest oil-by-rail facility in the country.

Washington State’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has been reviewing the project since 2013 — reportedly the longest review period ever for the council.  However, its November 28 meeting and vote on the final recommendation for the Tesoro Savage–backed project only took 10 minutes.

“Given the reality of climate change, there is simply no reason to build new fossil fuel infrastructure, especially for the export of extreme oil,” said Matt Krogh of activist group Stand, one of many groups opposing the Vancouver Energy project.  “The entire reason behind this proposal was to move crude oil from the middle of North America to overseas markets.  Simply put, this oil is not for us — and the proposal would leave every single community along the rail lines with all of the risk and none of the reward.” 

Read more at Washington Agency Votes to Reject Vancouver Energy’s Massive Oil-by-Rail Terminal

Not All Republicans Are Climate Change Doubters

New research shows that Republicans have more varied opinions about climate change than their political leaders suggest.

The idea that all Republicans think climate change isn't happening is a myth.  A new study published in Springer's journal Climatic Change finds substantial differences in the climate change views of both Republicans and Democrats across different states and congressional districts.  The research is led by Matto Mildenberger of the University of California Santa Barbara together with colleagues at Yale University and Utah State University.

The research team combined information from state voter files with climate and energy opinions collected online between 2008 and 2016 by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication.  The data allowed them to estimate the geographic distribution of Republican and Democratic climate and energy opinions across the country.

The researchers found substantial differences between the climate stance of Republican elites and their party members.  For example, many Republican members of Congress doubt whether climate change is happening, yet most Republican party members in different states do not actually doubt it.  In particular, those Republicans living in New York, Delaware, and Alaska were particularly likely to accept climate change is happening.  But overall only a quarter of Republicans in most states believe climate change is both happening and human-caused.

The differences in climate opinions also translate into party members' policy preferences.  There is, for instance, majority Republican support for Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) policies in 111 congressional districts currently held by Republican Members of Congress.  Similarly, a majority of Republicans in every state but Wyoming support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.  And in particular, relative to the average national party member, Republicans in Southern Florida strongly support regulating carbon pollution.

"While subsets of the Republican voting public do not support climate policies and hold views consistent with party elite, Republican climate and energy opinions are more varied than might be presumed from political discourse," says Mildenberger.  "Similarly, the results emphasize consistent support among Democrats for climate and energy policies, despite variation in belief intensity."

Read more at Not All Republicans Are Climate Change Doubters

Washington Agency Votes to Reject Vancouver Energy’s Massive Oil-by-Rail Terminal

In another major blow to the West Coast oil-by-rail industry, a Washington state agency voted unanimously to recommend Governor Jay Inslee reject the Vancouver Energy oil terminal.  Proposed for construction in Vancouver, Washington, along the Columbia River, it would be the largest oil-by-rail facility in the country.

Washington State’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has been reviewing the project since 2013 — reportedly the longest review period ever for the council.  However, its November 28 meeting and vote on the final recommendation for the Tesoro Savage–backed project only took 10 minutes.

“Given the reality of climate change, there is simply no reason to build new fossil fuel infrastructure, especially for the export of extreme oil,” said Matt Krogh of activist group Stand, one of many groups opposing the Vancouver Energy project.  “The entire reason behind this proposal was to move crude oil from the middle of North America to overseas markets.  Simply put, this oil is not for us — and the proposal would leave every single community along the rail lines with all of the risk and none of the reward.”

Read more at Washington Agency Votes to Reject Vancouver Energy’s Massive Oil-by-Rail Terminal

EU Sets New Binding Renewables Target of 35 Percent by 2030

On Tuesday, Industry and Energy Committee Members of the European Parliament (MEP) agreed that by 2030, a minimum of 35 percent of all energy consumed in the EU would need to come from renewable, cleaner sources.  For the transport sector, at least 12 percent of the energy consumed in each member state would have to be produced from renewables, such as the sun or wind.

Renewable energy stakeholders in the European Union are applauding new support for an increased renewables target for EU countries of 35 percent.  According to the European Parliament, the EU average share of renewables in 2015 was 16.7 percent, with Sweden leading the way at 53.9 percent.

Read more at EU Sets New Binding Renewables Target of 35 Percent by 2030

Wednesday, Nov 29

Sea-Level Rise Predicted to Threaten >13,000 Archaeological Sites in Southeastern US

Researchers analyzed heritage data integrated in the Digital Index of North American Archaeology.

Sea-level rise may impact vast numbers of archaeological and historic sites, cemeteries, and landscapes on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the southeastern United States, according to a study published November 29, 2017 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by David Anderson from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA, and colleagues.

To estimate the impact of sea-level rise on archaeological sites, the authors of the present study analyzed data from the Digital Index of North American Archaeology (DINAA). DINAA aggregates archaeological and historical data sets developed over the past century from numerous sources, providing the public and research communities with a uniquely comprehensive window into human settlement.

Just in the remainder of this century, if projected trends in sea-level rise continue, the researchers predict that over 13,000 recorded archaeological sites in the southeast alone may be submerged with a 1 m rise in sea-level, including over 1,000 listed on the National Register of Historic Places as important cultural properties. Many more sites and structures that have not yet been recorded will also be lost.

Read more at Sea-Level Rise Predicted to Threaten >13,000 Archaeological Sites in Southeastern US

Economists Warn of Vanishing Wealth of Nature

Top economists from Oxford University have this week warned of the danger caused by Ministries of Finance and Treasuries ignoring their dependence on nature, which is in a perilous state of decline, and the potential for businesses and politicians to miss the increasing systemic risks as the natural world around us fails.

The report, The wealth of nature:  Increasing national wealth and reducing risk by measuring and managing natural capital, considers the linkages between natural capital — i.e. nature — and human prosperity, and finds “that the erosion of natural capital poses threats to continued national and global prosperity, yet political and economic systems are unprepared for responding to that risk for three reasons.”

The Oxford economists highlight the fact that “natural capital is not being accurately measured or valued in the context of ecological tipping points and thresholds.”  Secondly, aggregate economic models are not currently equipped to properly see the dependencies between “capitals” — specifically, according to the report, “most cost-benefit analyses and economic methodologies used in everyday decisions assume that natural capital can be easily substituted by man-made capital, when in fact it cannot.”  Finally, the authors of the report claim that “we lack appropriate political and economic institutions to manage natural capital effectively; even national wealth accounts provide an incomplete picture of the value of natural capital.”

“Much of the value that economies create is built upon a natural foundation — the air, water, food, energy, and raw materials that the planet provides.  Without nature, no other value is possible,” said Professor Cameron Hepburn, who led the research at the University of Oxford’s Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School.

“We are poisoning the well from which we drink,” added Oliver Greenfield, convenor of the Green Economy Coalition, who commissioned the research.  “The dire state of nature and the implications for our future, barely registers in economic decision-making.  To put this another way, we are building up a big systemic risk to our economies and societies, and just like the financial crisis, most economists currently don’t see it.”

The economists highlight the increasing extreme weather events, mass extinctions, falling agricultural yields, and toxic air and water levels as proof that we are systematically damaging the global economy — considering that pollution alone costs $4.6 trillion each year.

However, the economists find encouraging signs that “our economy can be rapidly rewired to protect the planet” and outline “two key opportunities” to engage the three aforementioned challenges.  Firstly, all natural capital — both minerals, resources, and fossil fuels, as well as valuable ecosystem assets and natural infrastructure — could support greater prosperity if it were better valued and therefore more efficiently used.  Secondly, “governance regimes based on scientifically informed political decisions should protect critical natural capital,” including such things as stable climate and well-functioning ecosystems.  Such critical natural capital stocks should be informed by biophysical limits, potential irreversibility, thresholds, and the potential risks to essential life support functions.

“The opportunity to properly value nature is not just a task for economists but for all of us,” Oliver Greenfield added.  “The societies and economies that understand their dependency on nature are healthier and more connected, with a brighter future.”

Read more at Economists Warn of Vanishing Wealth of Nature

Analysis: How Developing Nations Are Driving Record Growth in Solar Power

Emerging markets now account for the majority of growth in solar power, according to new data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

Led by China and India, these developing economies are behind dramatic recent growth in solar capacity, which expanded by 33% in 2016.

China alone installed 27 gigawatts (GW), around 40% of the world’s new solar last year.  Brazil, Chile, Jordan, Mexico and Pakistan all at least doubled their solar capacity in 2016.

In total, solar accounted for 19% of all new generating capacity in the emerging markets tracked by BNEF.

However, solar still only accounts for 5% of capacity and 1.3% of electricity generation globally.  But its exponential growth in recent years has been driven by national policies and a combination of photovoltaic module prices falling more than threefold.

Exponential growth
Over the past decade, solar capacity has increased exponentially, driven by falling module prices and national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or expand access to electricity.

While Europe, the US, and Japan led the way in early solar installations, over the past few years most growth has been driven by developing countries, with China in particular starting to dominate the solar sector.

Read more at Analysis:  How Developing Nations Are Driving Record Growth in Solar Power

Battery Storage Will Offer Grid Support as Puerto Rico Recovers

Battery storage in the Dominican Republic helped that island grid survive a hurricane. Puerto Rico was a different story.

By 31 December a half-dozen 1-megawatt lithium-ion batteries could be in place, helping to support Puerto Rico’s electric power grid, which was almost entirely destroyed by Hurricane Maria.

Independent power producer AES is working with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) to site and deploy the batteries.  Most likely, says Chris Shelton, chief technology officer of the Virginia-based company, the batteries—which AES is donating—will support the still-fragile grid by enhancing both power quality and grid stability.

“We are not looking for commercial applications,” Shelton says.  “We are focused on putting them to work to help.”

Storage batteries are gaining credibility as a reliable and rapidly deployable technology.  A pair of crises thousands of miles apart illustrates how the technology can bolster grids when they face difficult challenges.

Read more at Battery Storage Will Offer Grid Support as Puerto Rico Recovers

Deepwater Wind Pledges $1 Million to Offshore Wind Research

In a move that would help offshore wind farms and fishing industries coexist in the U.S., Deepwater Wind recently pledged $1 million in research funding for the University of Massachusetts.

The funding would be used over five years for the Blue Economy Initiative and is contingent on approval of Deepwater Wind’s Revolution Wind offshore project by state utilities.  The 144-MW Revolution Wind project, which would be sited in Deepwater’s federal lease off the coast of Massachusetts, would be combined with energy storage, according to the company.  The developer submitted a bid for the project in July, and the selection of projects for negotiation is expected in January 2018.

The Blue Economy Initiative would be led by the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology via the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute.  According to UMass Dartmouth, independent researchers at the Marine Fisheries Institute will establish a research portfolio to advance both offshore wind development and the fishing industry in the decades to come.  

Read more at Deepwater Wind Pledges $1 Million to Offshore Wind Research

Tuesday, Nov 28

Shell to Double Green Energy Investments, Halve Carbon Footprint

Royal Dutch Shell announced it will double its spending on green energy between now and 2020, investing $2 billion to develop wind, biofuels, and electric car infrastructure, among other technologies.  The energy giant also outlined a new goal of halving the carbon footprint of the energy it sells by 2050, with an interim goal of a 20 percent reduction by 2035.

Shell’s new commitments are done “in step with society’s drive to align with the Paris goals,” the company’s CEO Ben van Beurden said in a statement.  “We will do it by reducing the net carbon footprint of the full range of Shell emissions, from our operations and from the consumption of our products.”
...
In addition to funding its own research, Shell said part of its $2 billion investment in green energy will go toward acquiring companies already working on these technologies, such as it did when it recently bought the electric car charging firms Ionity and New Motion.

The new climate-focused policies are a “long-term way of making sure our business remains a relevant business in the face of the energy transition,” van Beurden told The Guardian.  “Is the investment we are going to put in new energies enough?  Let’s see, we have to start somewhere.”

Read more at Shell to Double Green Energy Investments, Halve Carbon Footprint

Monday, Nov 27

Cleaner Coolants Fund Gets $540m – and US Backing

The Trump administration is set to ratify the Kigali Amendment to phase down potent warming HFC gases, while helping fund poor countries to make the switch.

Rich countries will pay $540 million over three years into a fund to support a shift to cleaner coolants, under a deal agreed in Montreal on Saturday.

Notably, the US is set to contribute $37m, despite the Trump administration’s hostility to multilateral environmental agreements.

It comes as the 1987 Montreal Protocol pivots from its initial focus on the ozone layer to addressing the climate impact of chemicals used in fridges and air conditioners.

State department official Judith Garber said the US was starting the process to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the protocol, which sets a phasedown path for HFCs, a group of potent warming gases produced by these appliances.

Read more at Cleaner Coolants Fund Gets $540m – and US Backing

US Energy Dept. Sees Microgrids, Renewables in Puerto Rico Future

President Trump talks a good game for the US coal industry, but his own Department of Energy is still pushing forward with programs that walk the renewable energy walk.  In the latest example, a new appointee to the Energy Department makes a strong case for reconstructing the power grid of Puerto Rico with microgrids supported by renewable energy.

The Energy Department’s new point person for power restoration in Puerto Rico is Bruce J. Walker.  He won confirmation as the Energy Department’s Assistant Secretary of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE for short) just last month, shortly after Hurricane Maria tore through the island.

Walker has a long (long, long) list of credits on the side of grid reliability and modernization.

That experience is on display in an article under Walker’s byline that appeared on the Energy Department’s website last week, under the title “How the Energy Department is Helping to Restore Power in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.“

Walker begins by noting that grid resilience is an OE priority nationwide, with a focus on “technology development, providing technical assistance to address the changing energy environment, and enhancing protection of the grid from all hazards.”

If you caught that thing about “changing energy environment,” you’re on to something. Walker could mean the renewable energy boom, or the shale gas boom, or both.  Either way, “changing” is not a particularly coal-friendly way to describe the Energy Department’s priorities.

Walker also emphasizes that part of OE’s core mission is to collaborate on “new tools and technology solutions to improve grid resilience and reliability.”  That sure doesn’t sound like he is much taken with the idea of protecting conventional (and uneconomical) coal and nuclear power plants.

No, Really, the Answer Is Microgrids
For those of you new to the topic, microgrids are electrical systems that draw power on-site or from local sources.  Microgrids can operate in coordination with a broader grid, and they can disconnect seamlessly to “island” themselves from widespread power outages.

Microgrids can use conventional sources like diesel.  With the addition of energy storage, though, wind and solar energy have a number of clear advantages.  They are far less noisy, less polluting, and less vulnerable to price swings and transportation interruptions.

With all this in mind, it’s little wonder that major energy stakeholders, including the US Department of Defense, are turning to microgrids supported by renewables for energy security and resiliency.

Walker’s article reflects that emerging consensus.  He was sworn in on October 16 and he was on the ground in Puerto Rico just a few days after.  By that time, the Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority was already committed to a restoration of the conventional grid.

In his article, Walker acknowledges the progress (well, some progress) that has been made on that score.  However, he foresees an opportunity to change direction in the long run:

 We’re building on those successes and see many opportunities ahead.  The Department’s Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium is looking at ways to make the grids of Puerto Rico and the USVI more resilient against future storms…

Among other things, that means microgrids.  According to Walker, the Energy Department has already identified 200 locations for microgrids at hospitals, water treatment plants, and other critical facilities in Puerto Rico.

That adds up to 11 megawatts, and that’s just the beginning.  Four hundred more locations in Puerto Rico are also being scouted for microgrid potential.

Among other long-term plans in the works, Walker notes that the Energy Department could deploy advanced modeling systems to scout the most efficient locations for wind and solar generation on Puerto Rico, and integrate more distributed energy resources into the grid.

Read more at US Energy Dept. Sees Microgrids, Renewables in Puerto Rico Future

Climate Migrants May Face Multiple Drivers

There are many reasons why people should migrate in huge numbers.  But new research pinpoints what may drive climate migrants.

German scientists say climate migrants may be responding to a range of pressures, and not just to climate change alone.

They have established a clear link between climate change and migration:  it happened during the 19th century, when temperatures fell and harvests failed.  And then it happened again, when temperatures rose and drought scorched the cereal crops.  And in both cases, many of the migrants moved to America.

Researchers report in the journal Climate of the Past that after the notorious “year without a summer” in 1816, a year in which a volcanic eruption in Indonesia darkened the skies worldwide, statistics from what is now Baden-Württemberg in Germany reveal a wave of migration to the US.  It happened again in 1846, after a prolonged hot and dry summer.

But although weather affected harvests between 1850 and 1855 the evidence was less clear that climate drove migration:  during those years the French banned food exports – because of the Crimean War – forcing up the price of grain in Germany.

Partial explanation
“Overall, we found that climate indirectly explains up to 20-30% of migration from southwest Germany to North America in the 19th century,” said Rüdiger Glaser, of the University of Freiburg, who led the research.

“The chain of effects is clearly visible; poor climate conditions lead to low crop yields, rising cereal prices, and finally emigration.  But it is only one piece of the puzzle.”

Climate scientists have been warning for years that climate change could drive mass migration and may already be doing so. 

Researchers have warned that by 2100, up to 2bn people could become climate refugees, and at around the same time conditions in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East may become intolerable, creating pressure for a mass exodus.

And even within the United States, researchers have warned of huge numbers of internal migrants, forced to flee the flooded coastal cities. 

Read more at Climate Migrants May Face Multiple Drivers

New Global Survey Reveals that Everyone Loves Green Energy — Especially the Chinese - by David Roberts

Also everyone hates coal.

I have written many times about the high levels of public support in the US for renewable energy — support that has been strikingly consistent over the years, despite the lack of similar enthusiasm among policymakers.

Now the Danish green energy company Ørsted (which used to be called Dong, back before it got out of the oil and gas business) has commissioned the largest-ever global survey of opinion on the subject, the Green Energy Barometer.

Partnering with the research consultancy Edelman Intelligence, Ørsted surveyed a whopping 26,000 people across 13 countries in late July, ensuring that at least 2,000 demographically representative respondents were reached per country.

Long story short:  The whole world wants more green energy (and less coal).

This was the main question on the survey:  “How important do you think it is to create a world fully powered by renewable energy (by this we mean energy is produced in a way where there is limited or no impact on the climate)?”

Across 13 of the world’s wealthiest countries, 82 percent of respondents deemed that goal important.

Strikingly, support for green energy held up across demographic categories.  While results were mildly divided by ideology, they were fairly close even there.

(I suspect, though the survey does not say, that ideological polarization on this issue is sharper in the US than anywhere else, though I’d love to see the raw numbers.)

Of course, that’s a pretty softball question.  It’s easy to say on a survey that things are important.  I think lots of things are important!  So I don’t know how much this can really tell us about how people will behave in actual political settings.  In the end, it’s an online survey about green energy from a green energy company, so the absolute numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.

But the relative numbers — that is, how countries and issues compare with one another — can be illuminating.

For instance, here’s how people rank global threats:

(People are wrong about this — the suffering from climate change promises to be many orders of magnitude greater than even the worst predictions about terrorism — but it goes to show that threats with faces will always scare people more than, e.g., bad weather.)

Read more at New Global Survey Reveals that Everyone Loves Green Energy — Especially the Chinese

Combating Climate Change? Combat Land Degradation, Says UNCCD Chief

Land restoration is not a “glamorous subject even when you give all the numbers,” admits Monique Barbut, the Executive Secretary of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCCD).  But she also stresses that by 2050, the world population will reach 10 billion.  To feed that extra 2.4 billion, current food production would need to be increased by 75 percent.

“To do that, we will have to add, from now to 2050, 4 million acres of new land every year.  So unless urgent action is taken to restore degraded land, the world is looking at an acute food-insecure future,” she told IPS in a special interview on the sidelines of the recently concluded UN Climate Conference – COP23 in Bonn.

Land vs energy:  a popularity game?
At the conference where ideas, actions, innovations, and resources were brought in the open to design a roadmap to tackle climate change, the discussions were dominated by ending coal, producing renewable energy, and making green technologies more accessible.  Land was an issue largely ignored, except by some indigenous peoples’ groups who stressed the need to maintain soil fertility.

But Barbut asserts that land is indeed integral to climate actions and policies taken both at the UN and at the national level.  “In the INDCs [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or what countries will do to cut carbon emissions] they have submitted, more than 140 countries have said that land was part of their solution or their problem in terms of climate change,” she points out.

One of the countries is India, where an estimated 30 percent of total land is already degraded.  According to a 2016 report by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) titled “World Day to Combat Desertification”, the degrading area has increased over 0.5 per cent to 29.3 million hectares in the past decade.  Desertification also increased by 1.16 million hectares (m ha) and stood at 82.64 m ha during 2011-13, says the report.

As a signatory to the UNCCD, India has committed to combat desertification and land degradation and become land degradation neutral by 2030.  In simple terms, this means having a balanced proportion of land loss and land gain.

However, though an ambitious goal, this is seldom talked about by the officials.  In sharp contrast, India’s other environmental actions, especially the Solar Mission which aims to produce 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022, is widely lauded.

Anand Kumar, the secretary of India’s Ministry for New and Renewable Energy, is quick to point out that the International Solar Alliance – a group of 44 countries committed to produce 1,000 gigawatts of solar energy – has promised investments of 1 trillion dollars by 2030.

No land restoration initiatives are likely to garner that kind of private investment, admits Barbut, as the job is more labor intensive.  “Even the most degraded land can be restored with a small investment of 300 dollars per hectare.  So, what is needed is not a large sum of money, but lots of manual labor.  So perhaps there is not a lot of scope for huge investment and large profits,” she says.

However, at the same time, she shared some good news:  the UNCCD, in collaboration with Mirova, the governments of France, Luxembourg, Norway, and the Rockefeller Foundation, has launched a special fund for restoring degraded land and fighting desertification.  Named the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Fund, this new finance vehicle was launched on September 12 this year, during the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP13) of the UNCCD in Ordos, China.

“We have launched the biggest land impact fund.  It is managed by Matistix.  It is a public-private fund.  By the beginning of next year, we hope to have about 300 million dollars of capitalization of the fund,” Barbut says.

Read more at Combating Climate Change?  Combat Land Degradation, Says UNCCD Chief

Disrupting Sensitive Soils Could Make Climate Change Worse, Stanford Researchers Find

Global warming and land use practices, such as farming, could change the environment for microbes living in the soil and alter the amount of greenhouse gases they release into the atmosphere.

Nearly a third of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere annually can be traced back to bacteria living in the soil, where they break down plant and animal matter for energy.

Eroded soil
Stanford research shows that climate change and certain farming practices could shift the amount of carbon dioxide that is released from soil.

For most soil microbes, this transformation requires oxygen.  But a new study finds that tiny, scattered populations of bacteria living in soil are oxygen-starved and have an underappreciated effect on the amount of this potent greenhouse gas that is released into the air.

The research, published Friday, Nov. 24 in the journal Nature Communications and led by Stanford’s Scott Fendorf and former postdoc Marco Keiluweit, finds that these oxygen-free pockets of soil are vulnerable to disruption from climate change and some farming practices.  The scientists said this work could help in modeling future carbon emissions by giving better predictions of how much CO2 might be released from the soil.

“Fortunately, the climate modelers are paralleling us,” said Fendorf, who is the Huffington Family Professor in Earth Sciences at Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.  “They need to appreciate this and they are.”

Carbon protection
Soil contains three times more carbon than the atmosphere.  Some of that carbon remains trapped underground through chemical reactions with minerals.  However, most is in the form of decomposing plant and animal matter, which microorganisms break down to create energy and CO2 – the equivalent of our eating and breathing.

This breakdown process normally requires oxygen, but in the small pockets of soil that lack oxygen, called anaerobic microsites, bacteria have evolved to extract energy from organic matter without oxygen, albeit less efficiently.  These oxygen-starved microbes produce significantly less CO2 and are also unable to break down certain carbon-rich biomolecules such as waxes and lipids.

“Anaerobic microsites play a protective role in that they preserve certain organic compounds that are abundant in soils worldwide, increasing carbon storage and decreasing CO2 emissions from soils,” said Keiluweit, who is now an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

But even though scientists have long known about the existence of anaerobic microsites, their prevalence and their overall contribution to the global carbon cycle – the exchanges of carbon between Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land systems – was not well understood and was not accounted for in ecosystem models that feed into future climate projections.

“The general perception has been that habitats that are completely underwater such as wetlands and swamps are anaerobic, and that unflooded, or upland, soils are mostly aerobic,” Fendorf said.  “What we show in this study is that there’s actually a very significant volume of upland soil that is sitting in anaerobic environments.”

Read more at Disrupting Sensitive Soils Could Make Climate Change Worse, Stanford Researchers Find

Saturday, Nov 25

Big Oil Companies Being Sued for Climate Impacts Could Be a ‘New Normal’

Fossil fuel companies have known for a long time that their products significantly contribute to climate change.  But it wasn’t until recently that scientists began to understand just how much of the climate crisis could be attributed to them – and, as a result, how much those corporations could be sued for.

Earlier this year, research from the Union of Concerned Scientists showed the largest 90 fossil fuel companies were responsible for about 50 percent of current warming.

Such research into how much damage can be attributed to fossil fuel companies is “vital” to bring lawsuits against those corporations, and holding them to account in the courts, Sophie Marjanac, a lawyer with Client Earth told an audience at the international climate negotiations held in Bonn.

Thanks to the research, “we have evidence of the deliberate concealment of risk from some of these companies,” Marjanac said.

She continued:  “There is a narrative out there that we are all responsible for climate change because we use electricity and drive cars.  However, I think the evidence now shows that there are some that are more responsible than others.”

Peter Frumhoff, chief scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the audience in Bonn that researchers’ understanding of the extent to which specific companies were responsible form climate impacts was “rapidly improving”.

“Even in cases where we don’t know exactly how climate change is changing the probability [of extreme events] we can say and provide information on how climate change is altering the damages.”

He said that after recent natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey, people were increasingly asking when fossil fuel companies would be held responsible for the impacts of people using their products.

Earlier research from Climate Central, for example, showed emissions from human activity were responsible for about $2 billion of extra damage done by Hurricane Sandy when it hit New York City in 2012.  And Frumhoff said such research could increasingly be used to help people work out how much of the impact of such extreme weather events were fossil fuel companies’ fault.

Lobbying and Blame
Lawsuits seeking to claw back some of the damage could become the “new normal”, Marjanac said, as scientists continue to gain a better understanding of how much damage can be attributed to the fossil fuel industry.

“We have significant documentary evidence about the way in which many of these companies have influenced and lobbied not only politicians to prevent action on climate change but also public opinion by sowing doubt in the minds of the public about the impacts of their products.”

She said “it’s difficult to know how this ends”, but — as with dangerous industries such as the tobacco lobby that have gone before — it normally ends with governments passing new laws to limit the damage they can cause.

As the impacts of climate change bite, “increasingly, legitimate questions will be asked in both the court of public opinion and the court of law about who will bear the costs”.

Read original at Big Oil Companies Being Sued for Climate Impacts Could Be a ‘New Normal’