Election 2008: Metro Environmental Blog Endorsements

In case you missed it, we've spent the last few days discussing the presidential candiates' positions on environmental issues. We've talked about Funding Science Research, Alternative Energy, Non-Renwable Energy, and Climate Change. Today we make some endorsements for local and federal elections, based on the candidates environmental voting records and proposals.

State Senate:

Ken LaVelle (R) – District 1 (Eastern Suffolk).

Endorsed by New York Conservation League. Has a long term history of environmental stewardship.

John Flanagan (R) – District 2 (Northwestern Suffolk).

His opponent does not appear capable of handling the responsibilities of state senate. Senator Flanagan does not appear to take much interest in the environment, instead pursing other issues in Albany. We’d like to hear more from him on the environment but endorse him none the less.

Brian Foley (D) – District 3 (Southwestern Suffolk)

His opponent, 82 year old Cesar Trunzo is no longer an active legislature, having not spoken on the Senate floor in over 2 years. Brian Foley did a good job cleaning up corruption in Brookhaven Town, and will do a good job in Albany too.

Representatives:

Tim Bishop (D) - District 1 (Eastern Long Island)
Tim Biship has long been a friend to environmental causes and improving higher education. Comes endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voters.

Jim Hall (D) - District 19 (Middle Hudson Valley, Northern Westchester)
Strong voting record on the environment, received a score of 100% from League of Conservation Voters.

Nita Lowey (D) - District 18 (Westchester County)
Strong voting record on the environment, received a score of 100% from League of Conservation Voters.

State Assembly:

Steve Engelbright (D) – District 4 (Stony Brook, Port Jefferson)
A member of the Geosciences faculty at Stony Brook University, he is one of the few science educated members of the Assembly. He comes highly endorsed for his deep seeded support of the environment and higher education. He is endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voter.

Sandy Galef (D) – District 37 (Ossining, Yorktown)
Ms. Galef is a long time assemblywoman, and has a demonstrated long term record of supporting environmentally friendly legislation. She is endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voter.

US President

I am endorsing and supporting Barack Obama for President of the United States of America, based on his proposed plan for energy and the environment.

I have long admired Senator John McCain, so much so in fact that I agreed to trade my vote in the Democratic Primary with the vote of a friend who was a Republican. I would pull the lever for Barack Obama for her, if she would vote for John McCain for me. So this election was, until a certain point, a relatively difficult decision for me.

Senator McCain, I believe will tackle greenhouse gas emissions comprehensively. I like his proposal to increase nuclear power, and his opposition to federal corn subsidies. I don’t quite understand his lukewarm support for wind and solar power, and wish he would commit to increasing funding for the hard sciences. I cringe at his desire to pursue offshore drilling, and find his overwhelming support for coal energy to be quite disappointing. Overall Senator McCain has a modest proposal to handle the environment, that is most likely acceptable to address the challenges we will face this century.

However, Senator Obama’s environmental policy is more than acceptable, it’s both exciting and visionary and will make the United States into a leader on environmental issues. Senator Obama receives high marks for his support for wind and solar energy, his willingness to increase funding of science research, and his support science education. I hope that he continues to qualify his support for coal and offshore drilling, and I pray that his support for corn subsidies wanes as he shifts his responsibilities to representing the people of Illinois to representing the people of America. Senator Obama could be the first president since Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter to truly advance environmental stewardship in the United States, and now more than ever that sort of leadership is needed.

While Senator Obama has a better plan, it was not so superior to Senator McCain to sway me in voting overall. But frankly, I lost my admiration for Senator McCain when he nominated Sarah Palin to be his vice president. Her environmental record as Governor of Alaska is frightening. She has routinely ignored science research, and instead has supported polices that agree with her ideology. She doesn’t believe that man has caused global warming, and will not take the decisive actions needed to curb our emissions. She has a history of being insensitive to biodiversity concerns, except when industry can be hurt by the results. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be vice-president of the United States, and should God forbid anything happen to Senator McCain, she would be an absolute disaster as a president.

So on Tuesday I will be voting for Barack Obama. Not so much as casting a vote for him, but rather casting a vote against Sarah Palin. Thanks for reading this series. Regular posting will continue on Wednesday.

Election 2008: Non-Renewable Energy

Non-Renewable Energy Policy

It’s usually easy to identify the candidate who has sounder environmental policy, scroll to the Democratic ticket row of your voting machine, and pull the lever. But not this year. It’s a crazy political year, I daresay. Red is blue, blue is red and up is down. The Republicans have nominated a senator who proposed the first legislation to fight global warming and the Democrats have nominated a senator who has made his support of coal and nuclear power a major portion of his energy bill. In my opinion neither candidate would be an environmental disaster, which is a stark change from the past few elections. Both candidates have good environmental records, and we owe it to them to consider their policy in detail. With that in mind, let’s take a close look at the candidates environmental policy on Non-Renewable Energy. I think there are a lot of things we could talk about, but in the interest of time we’re going to focus on coal burning, nuclear energy and off-shore drilling.

I’ve already talked about the difference between alternative and renewable fuels, but here is how we define a renewable fuel.

A renewable energy source is one that the fuel or energy source is rejuvenated quicker by natural processes than we consume the fuel.

As such all fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) are non-renewable. As is nuclear power, as the fuel (uranium or plutonium) does not regenerate.

Coal Burning

The positions: Both candidates support additional development of coal fueled energy.

McCain: McCain says:

John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.

The McCain-Palin website mistakenly identifies coal use as a both “clean” and an “alternative” energy source. Coal energy is neither clean nor it is an alternative energy source as it is a fossil fuel.

McCain has expressed steady support for coal technology through the years. This position is fairly popular with the large American oil companies, who have strongly supported McCain this election cycle. If McCain wins the election there is no doubt that coal energy will be a major point in his energy policy.

It is unclear from his policy point if this coal energy development would be subject to McCain’s proposed market driven cap-and-trade system for carbon credits (we will discuss this in the future).

Obama:


Whereas McCain professes unwavering support of coal energy, Obama appears to be tying his support of coal into the development and deployment of clean coal technology. Coal use would also be subject to regulation from the carbon permit trading program.

Obama appears particularly interested in developing technologies that convert coal to oil or gas. This application is also strongly supported by the U.S. military.

The case for coal:
Abundance. Both candidates favor “clean coal technology” as a major part of their energy plan. A major reason for such thinking is our abundant energy reserves of coal could make coal an excellent way to achieve energy independence. At our current consumption rates, it is estimated that we have well over 100 years of coal reserves in North America, as opposed to about 15 years of oil and 50 years of natural gas.

Infrastructure. We have the infrastructure in place to utilize our coal reserves. There are many, many coal burning power plants (especially east of the Mississippi). No federal funds would be required to continue using coal, and industry has plenty of economic incentive to invest in additional coal plants because the energy is so cheap.

It’s cheap. Because it’s so abundant and we have the infrastructure in place, coal energy will produce cheap energy, which is a very important factor given today’s economy.

Swing States. The table below shows that a number of the major coal producing states are considered in play by both candidates. By my estimation West Virginia (#2), Pennsylvania (#4), Montana (#5), Colorado (#7), Indiana (#8) and North Dakota (#10) are all being actively campaigned in by both sides, and all of these states are major coal producers.

Table. Coal production by state in 2007. Coal production in thousands of short tons. Data taken from the Department of Energy. States of interest highlighted in red.



Home State Influence. Senators Biden and Obama (IL - #9) both come from states where coal is an important industry, and thus are under tremendous pressure to support it in the senate. (Little known fact, Joe Biden grew up in Scranton, PA., they really should talk about that more.) Senator McCain represents Arizona which is the #18 coal producing state, and Governor Palin hails from Alaska which is then #22 coal producing state.

The Case Against Coal:
Coal is filthy. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy available to man for consumption. Burning coal produces ash (particulate matter) which possess a major threat to human health. Burning coal produces air born mercury, which is highly toxic and accumulates in fish before humans consume it. Burning coal produces loads of sulfur dioxide, which in the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere produces acid rain. Burning coal produces nitrogen dioxide, which contributes greatly to ozone formation, which is a major air pollutant.

Coal mining is environmentally unsound. The process by which coal is removed from the Earth is terribly dangerous to coal mine workers. The process by which coal is removed from the Earth is incredibly environmentally destructive to the mountains from which it is removed, often as a product of strip mining, which can lead to acid mine drainage into local waterways.

Clean Coal Technology. First of a definition. Clean coal technology is any technology that reduces the quantity of pollution produced from coal burning. The most common form of "clean" coal technology is scrubbers, which remove fly ash from coal plants. Clean coal technology isn’t actually clean. Today, clean coal technology reduces the amount of fly ash (and other particulate), mercury (and other toxic metals), and to a lesser extent reduces the amount of sulfur dioxide (leads to acid rain) and nitrogen oxides (leads to ozone formation) produced from coal burning. However, today these “clean” coal technologies do not remove these pollutants from the emission process, just reduce them. Most of the time, even with “clean” coal technology coal burning plants still produce tremendous quantities of air pollutants, greatly exceeding that produced from natural gas.

Greenhouse Gasses. Coal burning produces prodigious quantities of carbon dioxide. As such coal burning is a major contributor to global warming, increasing especially quickly in China. Both McCain and Obama support investing in carbon sequestration, a process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the coal driven pollution, and returned to the ground. These technology has not yet been produced, and the environmental impacts of the sequestration is poorly known.

Portability. Coal burning produces energy for electricity, but is not used to produce fuels for transportation so it’s utility is somewhat limited at the current time.

Conclusion. I support neither candidates platform on this issue as both candidates support this environmentally unfriendly process. Obama attaches more conditions to the development of this energy source, but both would feature clean coal technology in their energy plan.

Nuclear Energy

The positions: Both candidates support additional development of nuclear energy.
Obama:




Obama supports development of nuclear power, but only after we have developed a system for handing the waste process. This position puts Obama at odds with his more liberal supporters, who in general strongly oppose the development of nuclear energy. He opposes the use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository.

Illinois is home to many nuclear reactors, six plants with a total of 11 reactors. This no doubt impacts Senator Obama’s position on the issue.

McCain:

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

McCain expresses unwavering support for nuclear energy. He proposes constructing 45 new nuclear plants by 2030. This number is thought by engineers to be unreasonable, as there are no industrial facilities in the United States presently capable of constructing commercial nuclear power facilities. Also, at present the United States does not have sufficient nuclear engineers needed to run 45 additional nuclear power plants. Senator McCain supports use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository of spent fuel.

Arizona is home to a nuclear plant, with three reactors. Arizona has a large portion of our nation’s uranium ore. Development of nuclear power would likely provide a boost to the Arizona economy.

The Case for Nuclear:
The Only Alternative. Nuclear power at the present time represents the only alternative fuel capable of meeting America’s electric power consumption at the present time. It may be a viable short term solution between now, and when alternative, renewable energy sources (i.e. wind, solar, tides, geothermal…) are available and technically feasible.

It’s safer. Technological developments have made nuclear energy safer than ever. Reactors used at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are now obsolete and have been replaced with much safer designs.

The Case Against Nuclear Energy:
Cost. Nuclear energy is significantly more expensive than energy produced from fossil fuels, and even some alternatives.

NIMBY. Not in my backyard. It is very difficult to find a location for a nuclear power plant, since no communities want to take on the risk of nuclear incidence.

Nuclear Waste. Upon use, nuclear fuel produces a radioactive waste stream. At the current time, the United States has no central location to handle nuclear waste. Instead it is stored at the site of the nuclear power plant. This represents a security and health risk. It would be advisable to store all nuclear waste in a central location that could be monitored, and the nuclear waste health impacts limited to a small location.

Lacking Infrastructure. When fuel is used in a nuclear power plant, a percentage of the fuel that is produced as waste is recoverable and could be used as reprocessed fuel in the future. At present, this excess fuel is dumped in with the waste fuel and not recovered. The United States needs to develop a central re-processing plan to handle this nuclear fuel, and recover as much usable fuel as possible, if we are to develop nuclear energy on a federal level.

Transport of Waste. Even if the United States develops a central repository and reprocessing center, many states have regulations forbidding the transportation of nuclear waste through their borders. A safe transportation system would have to be developed.

Nuclear Proliferation. Even though the threat of global nuclear winter has been reduced, regional nuclear wars are still possible (i.e. India-Pakistan). Increasing the number of nuclear plants increases our countries ability to produces new nuclear weapons, which may be an obstacle to the bi-lateral weapon reduction program we are entered in with Russia.

Yucca Mountain. The United States has spent a tremendous amount of money developing Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. There is some debate as to whether or not Yucca Mountain is a safe place to store nuclear waste, due to the possibilities of earthquakes in the region.

Conclusion: Despite the risk, I am personally strongly in favor of additional utilization of nuclear energy. I realize this is not the popular environmental sentiment, but I believe the risk can be minimized, and positive from the reduction in greenhouse gasses outweighs the negative. Both candidates agree with my position. I prefer Senator Obama’s proposal because it includes a comprehensive discussion of the need to develop a repository and reprocessing plant, which would be vital if our nation moves in that direction.

Off Shore Drilling

The positions: Unlike the previous two energy possibilities, the two candidates differ strongly on this issue. Senator McCain has expressed strong support for off-shore drilling. Senator Obama has tepid support for it, and appears to intend to use it as leverage to get his energy legislation advanced.

McCain: “Drill, baby, drill.”

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

Senator McCain strongly supports the exploitation of marine resources for the production of domestic oil. This is in strong contrast to his senatorial voting record where he has voted against his party on the exploitation of ANWAR.

Governor Palin is in strong favor of development of oil reserves off-shore and in Alaska.

Obama:


Obama appears to be pandering to public support of offshore oil development. His written policy supports development of these oil reserves in a limited capacity and only as part of a larger energy plan that includes alternative fuels.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have voted against drilling in ANWAR.

The Case for Offshore Drilling:
None. There is no good reason to increase offshore drilling.

The Case Against for Offshore Drilling:
It won’t help soon. Oil from offshore drilling won’t arrive for 7 to 10 years, and will represent only a fraction of our oil consumption.

It won’t appreciably reduce the cost of fuel. The economic impacts of this additional oil income would be on the order of cents per gallon of gasoline.

False promises. A number of proponents of offshore drilling are suggesting that there is more oil present than what government studies performed in the 1970’s estimated was present. Likely the amount of oil reserves lies somewhere in between the two ranges of numbers.

The figure below shows proven oil reserves off the coast. The additional oil that will be tapped is a very small fraction of that which we are already drilling for. It would represent a drop in the bucket. The data for this figure is from the Department of the Interior, but I'm not sure exactly where this figure is taken. Please advise if you know the proper citation.



Addition Feeding. The U.S. reserves represent somewhere between 2% and 3% of the worlds oil supply. We consume 25% of the world’s oil use. Spending federal money to develop these supply only feeds our addiction, and will prolong our use of petroleum. We will not move towards producing alternative energies. This will prolong our addition to foreign oil, not sever it.

Environmental Impacts. Governor Palin’s famous quote about offshore oil drilling been clean and safe is untrue and unfounded. During both Hurricane Ike and Katrina large quantities of oil were released, entering the marine environment, causing extensive damage.

Conclusion: Neither candidate professes an environmentally friendly perspective on offshore oil development. Senator McCain’s policy represents a much greater threat to the environment than Senator Obama’s policy, however neither is ideal.

Tomorrow, we will move onto the candidates positions on alternative energies.

Election Special

So as promised, we’re about to begin our Election 2008 coverage here. We’re going to discuss the candidates stance on four issues, partly as decided by your votes:

Wednesday: Non-Renewable Energy
Thursday: Renewable Energy
Friday: Funding of Science and Science Research
Monday: Climate Change

Also on Monday, I’ll conclude with my endorsement of a candidate, based on their environmental policy.

So please check back over the next couple of days!

Register to vote

Are you registered to vote yet? If not, you need to act now! The deadline to register to vote is October 10th in New York State. All registration forms must be postmarked on October 10th and received by your county board of elections by October 15th. Registering is quick and easy, all you need is a printer, an envelope and a stamp.

Follow this link to learn more. You'll need to download a pdf, print it, fill it out and put it in the mail by this weekend.

http://www.elections.state.ny.us/Voting.html#RegisterVote

Once you register, you will receive notice of your polling place by mail. This is the location at which you will cast your vote.

On a completely unrelated note, one of the vice presidential candidates shoots wolves from helicopters for fun! You can argue about the ethics of shooting wildlife from aircraft all you like, but the scary thing is how easily Sarah Palin ignores the advice of scientists, scientists armed with data, to go along with a politically popular idea.

Seriously people you need to register to vote.

V.P. Debate Remix

Last night's much anticipated debate had only a few minutes of climate and environmental policy discussion. But for the sake of argument, let's take a look at how each of the debaters did.

Clean Coal Technology
Both candidates came out in strong favor of using clean coal technology to drive our energy policy in the next administration. Clean coal technology is an example of hard path energy policy, a policy that increases our use of fossil fuels in an attempt to meet energy demands.

Here is what Senator Biden had to say:

The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.

If Senator Biden is imply that clean coal technology will reduce greenhouse gas emission, he’s wrong – dead wrong. If anything increasing the United States use of coal, will greatly increase our greenhouse gas emissions.

So let’s spend a minute or two discussing clean coal technology. So I’ve heard, it’s useful to use metaphors to describe science to large audiences. Well, clean coal technology is like putting lipstick on a pig…um wait, no that one has been used. Clean coal technology is filthy. Clean coal burning still produces amazingly large quantities of green house gasses. Clean coal technology is only clean when compared to coal burning, which is horrendously bad for the environment.

* Clean coal technology does not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions
* Clean coal technology does not reduce the amount of green house gasses produced from burning coal
* Clean coal technology does not reduce the impact of harmful strip mining for coal
* Clean coal technology is not an alternative fuel
*What clean coal technology does is reduce the quantity of fly ash and SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced from the burning of coal
* Fly ash is a major constituent of particulate matter, small solid particles that float in the air and are harmful to human health
* Sulphur dioxide is a major constituent of acid rain
* Clean coal technology may or may not reduce the quantity of mercury emitted from coal burning
* Mercury is a toxic metal, which is quite harmful to human health

What clean coal technology is, is American. We have tons of coal. Literally, billions of tons of coal. It’s an energy supply that American has in spades. Too bad it’s dirtier than oil, dirtier than natural gas and not even in the same league as solar and wind power.

Climate Change
Ms. Palin had a few interesting things to say when it came to the causes of climate change:

I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

Once again Ms. Palin goes on the record as doubting that climate change is the result of man’s continual emission of CO2 and methane. Ms. Palin states that she wants to “positively affect the impacts,” and to be clear the only way to do this is to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses. But if you don’t believe that man has caused this problem by producing greenhouse gasses, how can you craft good policy to reduce said gasses?

Senator Biden follows up with a rather cogent point:

If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

For contrast, what does Senator Biden accredit climate change to:

Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden.

That he goes on to say that clean coal is a way to address climate change is only a minor deduction compared to the major fault of not being able to assert that climate change is driven by man.

Clean Green Natural Gas?
Ms. Palin later refers to natural gas as “clean and green:”

They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.

Again, to clear up potential misconceptions, burning natural gas results in greenhouse gas emissions. Anytime you burn a fossil fuel; oil, coal or natural gas, you will produce greenhouse gasses. There is very little that is “green” about tapping into the Earth in environmentally sensitive ecosystems like the Arctic and sub-Arctic by drilling for oil and natural gas.

”Environmentally Friendly Drilling”
The debate increased in its intensity as the debaters discussed off-shore drilling. Off shore drilling is a potentially disastrous exploitation of resources on under-studied continental shelves.

Ms. Palin was not impressed with the Biden-Obama position on off-shore drilling.

Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.

There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.

I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.

There is a lot of hesitation to drill on continental shelves because we know far too little about these remote regions and their ecosystems to assess the impact that drilling would have on them. As a nation we have devoted precious little funding to ocean exploration and marine sciences research. I think this debate reminds us of how important it is to increase our knowledge of the oceans.

Oh and Ms. Palin, Senator Biden noted that there isn’t such a thing as clean coal because there is no such thing as clean coal. There is only slightly-less-filthy-but-still-loaded-in-greenhouse-gasses-coal.

Additional Resources and Transcript
Here are some additional resources for those of you interested in learning more about what the debaters had to say. The times had a good running blog of each question and the response from each debater. The Times also links to a blog reporting on clean coal and caps, which I haven’t had a chance to read yet but greatly look forward to reading.

What follows here is Biden and Palin’s brief discussion of climate and energy, from the vice presidential debate last night. The full transcript can be found here.

IFILL: Governor, I'm happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let's talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?

PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.

I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.
As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts.

We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.

IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes?

BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden.

If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Now, let's look at the facts. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels.

The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.

China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology.

We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.

In the meantime, we're all going to be in real trouble.

IFILL: Let me clear something up, Senator McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Senator Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.

BIDEN: I have always supported it. That's a fact.

IFILL: Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Governor Palin.

PALIN: Yes, Senator McCain does support this. The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.
Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.

There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.

I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.

IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?

PALIN: I do. I do.

IFILL: OK. And on the clean coal issue?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely we do. We call for setting hard targets, number one...

IFILL: Clean coal.

BIDEN: Oh, I'm sorry.

IFILL: On clean coal.

BIDEN: Oh, on clean coal. My record, just take a look at the record. My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.

But here's the bottom line, Gwen: How do we deal with global warming with continued addition to carbon emissions? And if the only answer you have is oil, and John -- and the governor says John is for everything.

Well, why did John vote 20 times? Maybe he's for everything as long as it's not helped forward by the government. Maybe he's for everything if the free market takes care of it. I don't know. But he voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources.

Steward's Icebox...now without ice!

The figure on the right shows the yearly total area coverage of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean (y-axis), as a function of month of the year (x-axis). 2008 has had more sea ice coverage than in 2007, especially in the summer months, but is significantly below average. Image from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

There is absolutely nothing worse than getting into a black painted car with a black interior in the afternoon of a hot, sunny summer day. Just crack open the door and waves of heat strikes roll over you as the hot air escapes the vehicle. Black cars become hot because the sunlight striking the car is absorbed by the black paint. In contrast a silver or white car is cooler, because the sunlight striking the car is reflected away back towards the sky.

The same thing happens to the Earth’s air temperature. It’s really warm above dark objects that absorb sunlight and cooler above light objects that reflect that sunlight. And that is one of the many reasons why the ice covering the Arctic and Antartic regions is so vital, when sunlight strikes the ice, it is reflected back to space, cooling the Earth’s climate significantly.

This is why scientists are making such a fuss about the decrease in sea ice in the Artic Ocean. Sea ice acts as a reflective agent for the Earth moderating the climate. As the Earth warms in the next few years, the amount of ice will decrease as it melts, which in turn will further increase the temperature of the Earth as less sunlight is reflected and more is absorbed. Scientists refer to this as a “positive feedback” because an increase in one variable causes the system to respond by further increasing that variable.

This summer sea ice was found in greater abundance than was found in the summer of 2007. Summer is the point of the year that sea ice is at a minimum, and thus when the positive feedback is at its strongest. While having more sea ice this year is a good thing, it probably means very little in the long run, as the amount of ice found is still much less than what was observed for most of the 20th Century.

The annual summer retreat of the sea ice cloaking the Arctic Ocean appears to have ended with the ice not quite matching last year’s extraordinary recession, polar scientists said Tuesday.

Still, the scientists, at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said that the ice in the Arctic this summer was 33 percent below the average extent tracked since satellites started monitoring the region in 1979 and that the trend continued toward an ice-free Arctic Ocean within a few decades.

As people who’ve been through a winter or two will tell you, some years are colder than others and Arctic climate is no different. This year, was a bit colder than last year, but the long term trend is robust. Sea ice is declining rapidly during the summer, and soon there will likely be no summer ice to speak of.

Dr. Meier said that small variations from one year to the next were less significant than the long-term trajectory, which remained toward progressively more open water. “It’s hard to see the summer ice coming back in any substantial way,” he said.

Decreases in sea ice have impacts beyond that of just climate. While some of our nation’s greatest politicians, who are obviously experts in the field of climate science may not agree with recent finding regarding the findings showing that Polar Bears and other Arctic species may struggle in an environment suddenly devoid of ice, scientists note that this is also a major concern:

Federal biologists have said that this long-term ice retreat is the main reason they had concluded that polar bears, which hunt seals from the ice, deserved protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Bush administration listed the species in May as threatened with extinction.

Global warming from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases almost certainly contributes to the Arctic ice retreats, according to a host of Arctic specialists. But many say natural variations in Arctic winds and cloud cover probably had a role in shaping the particularly large ice losses in the past two summers.

It will be interesting to keep an eye on sea ice in the summer months during the next few years. Maybe we should put a pool together to pick the first year without any sea ice? It’d be like fantasy baseball, but fantasy climate. This could be a money winner…

Concerns About Wind Power in an Urban Enviroment

(Aside: Thanks to everyone who has e-mailed me about Science Debate 2008. I am planning on writing a few posts about how this years crop of politicians have performed on issues relating to the environment in October. Until then, you can stop e-mailing me about this :-).)

Avid reader, master strategist and all around great guy Chris John noted this concern about implementing wind power in an urban environment:

If an art exhibit (Olaf Eliasson's [sp] waterfalls) under the Brooklyn Bridge almost killed two kayakers, I dread to think of the mess we're going to have to clean up from wind turbines.

So lets take a few minutes to address wind power, and to think about how well suited it would be for a major urban region like New York City.

A couple of years ago I was lucky enough to win the Evan R. Liblit Scholarship. I was honored to be chosen as the Evan R. Liblit Scholar, since Mr. Liblit was an environmental hero, championing the cause of recycling and responsible waste management on Long Island during the 1980’s and 1990’s. (People are so passionate about Evan Liblit, that they are even willing to row the length of the Yukon River to raise awareness and money). As part of the Scholarship I was to attend the New York State Solid Waste and Recycling Conference in Lake George. Admittedly, I wasn’t particularly excited about this – who wanted to spend a week learning about garbage? But my talk was well received, which was great and I got to see a presentation session on Wind Power in New York State, the content of which has stuck with me ever since.

As it turns out, wind power is becoming a big business in many parts of New York State, especially those regions that abut the Great Lakes. The regions downwind of the Great Lakes are (as we discussed before) in a region with great wind power potential, and also are suffering from a still stagnant economy that began its decline in the late 1980’s. As such many municipalities are investigating whether allowing utility companies to construct wind turbines on farmland and other open terrain would be beneficial to the communities. I can’t recall this with much certainty, but I do recall someone citing at the conference the example of a small town that had reduced its school and property taxes to zero by contracting with a major utility.

To me, one of the most surprising aspects of the wind power craze in Central and Western New York State, was the degree to which lawyers needed to be involved in the process. Here I will try to speak as simply as possible to avoid displaying my legal ignorance (much like Sarah Palin should avoid speaking in public about polar bears, global warming and ANWAR – ZING!). Small rural municipalities were very much so dependant upon two firms (one in Albany one in Buffalo) to draft complicated lease agreements with utilities as well as to craft appropriate zoning regulation that protected the health and welfare of residents along with allowing for economically reasonable utilization of wind energy. This process is much more involved than you think, due to the impacts of ice throw and noise pollution generated by wind turbines (actually it is so complicated that there is a legal blog dedicated to issues regarding wind power).

Ice Throw

Ice throw occurs when wind turbine blades become coated in ice, generally from freezing rain or from freezing fog. As winds pick up after the storm, the blades begin to rotate and in the process the ice that has accumulated on the blade can be thrown over large distances. The figure to the right, taken from this non-peered reviewed source, shows the distance ice can be hurled. Along the ordinate (x-axis) is shown the width of the turbine blades in meters. The y-axis shows the distance that ice chunks have been thrown. The color of the dots show the mass of the hurled ice chunks. Smaller chunks of ice have been shown to be thrown lengths in excess of three football fields. Larger chunks of ice, coming in at about 1kg or 2.2 lbs have been shown to be thrown 25m! Well take those results with a grain of salt, since they don’t come from a peer reviewed source, but none the less it is evident that wind turbines cannot be sited in densely populated regions, or even in regions with large amounts of infrastructure. It doesn’t need to be said, but obviously chunks of ice flying off of 50 story buildings in Manhattan would probably be frowned upon by local residents.

It should be noted that by my recollection, none of the speakers at the conference considered ice throw to be a major issue. They noted that technology was improving, reducing the capacity of ice to be thrown and that the amount of ice accumulation was relatively small in general and limited to short periods of the year. They also pointed out the lack of observed injuries related to ice throw, suggesting that either this is not a serious issue or that people have done a good job citing turbines.

Noise Pollution
A second major concern that requires the attention of zoners, is that of noise generation. Turbines when operational generate a low frequency humming noise. Although not altogether an unpleasant sound, the volume (which gets higher as the turbines speed up) accumulated over time can injure local residents long term hearing.

Here is a video of a large industrial wind farm, documenting the noise that the giant turbines make:



The amount of noise will vary based on the design of each turbine, the wind speed and local topography. Each community needs to assess how much noise each turbine in their town is expected to put out, and make zoning regulations that make sense for local resident’s health. In the case of New York City, it is unclear whether or not a wind turbine would produce noise in excess of the current noise levels. Massive wind turbines, like those shown on the above video are also not possible in an urban environment. One imagines that a smaller turbine built for rooftop use would have a much smaller noise impact.

Aesthetic impacts
The visual presence of wind turbines is thought to have a potential negative aesthetic impact. This is true in many pristine environments, but in other environments some folks actually enjoy the way the wind turbines look. I wish I had a reference to back this up, but I heard once that in Europe property values of locations with wind turbines.

In the case of the Long Island Windpark, concerns over property value were paramount. Additionally folks were very worried about the impact of wind turbines on the view from regional beaches and tourism.

Bird deaths
To be frank, I think that this issue is overstated. The number of birds killed by feral cats at Stony Brook University outnumbers the total number of birds killed by wind turbines in all of New York State I would guess. This issue seems to be something of an “ecco-myth” and probably stems back to antiquated technology. Some new wind turbines come equipped with “whistles” that emit sound on a wavelength that birds can hear (humans however cannot hear the sound) and find annoying.

Birds have a large number of threats to their well being to be sure, high tension wires, high rise buildings, automobiles, domesticated invasive species – I’m not so sure that wind turbines are of the order of impacts as the previously listed problems.

Yikes this post is getting long, probably past the point that anyone is still reading. So let me conclude with a wildcard. Everything we have been discussing so far has pertained to the traditional wind turbine. Colossal, gigantic, tall, massive – these are all adjectives that could be used to describe the turbines. These are not the sorts of turbines that would be practical in New York City.

Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, said that turbines on buildings would likely be much smaller than offshore ones. Several companies are experimenting with models that look like eggbeaters, which the Bloomberg administration says could be integrated into the spires atop the city’s tall buildings. “”You can make them so small that people think they are part of the design,” Mr. Aggarwala said. “If rooftop wind can make it anywhere, this is a great city,” he said. “We have a lot of tall buildings.”

Such new turbines would have to be designed to not produce any icethrow, and regardless of the size of the particles or how far they are thrown, ice chunks falling from sky scrapers would not be acceptable. Noise concerns must be taken into account, but I’m not entirely confident that wind turbines would be appreciably louder than air conditioner units currently housed on many rooftops, nor would they be louder than the ambient city noise levels. Bird kill in New York City may be a serious problem as many birds congregate on city rooftops. Furthermore, birds in New York City are notoriously stupid and their termination may be a blessing in disguise…just kidding.