In U.S., green means gold

According to New York Times columnist and author Thomas L. Friedman, the world is not going through a green revolution.

"Have you ever been to a revolution where no one got hurt? That's the green revolution. In the green revolution everybody is a winner. Exxon's green, BP's green, GM is now green," said Friedman during a discussion of his new book "Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How it Can Renew America."

"That's not a revolution my friends, that's a party...it has no connection whatsoever to a revolution. You'll know it's a revolution when somebody gets hurt."

Friedman explained that recent threats to the environment has made a revolution of this magnitude necessary, and that it can be carried out through innovation in energy technologies (ET).

"Whichever country, company, or community can come up with a source of abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons...will actually have the answer for energy resource supply and demand, will be able to undermine petro-dictatorships, will be able to mitigate climate change, will be able eliminate energy poverty, and will certainly be able to slow down bio-diversity loss."

Friedman said that with the opportunity to provide so many benefits, energy technologies will be the next great global industry, and the country that dominates the field will have the greatest economic, national, and energy security.

"That country has to be the United States of America. If we don't own ET the way we owned [information technology], the chance that our kids having the same standard of living we did will be zero...it's still up for grabs."

Shades of green: Obama, McCain advisors on energy policy

The energy policies of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) were discussed at a conference hosted by the National Journal. In addition, panelists discussed their views of the political climate for legislative action in the coming congress.

Elgie Holstein, senior adviser to the Obama Campaign on energy, stated that both McCain and Obama have endorsed a cap and trade approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions, believing it to be the most economically friendly way to meet strict greenhouse gas emissions limitations that the campaign is hoping will become a part of national policy. However, the candidates differ in how aggressive they plan to be. Obama hopes to see a reduction of 80 percent below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, while McCain would aim for a 60 percent reduction. In addition, Obama plans to auction off credits to companies that choose to continue polluting. Money from these auctions would be used to develop clean-energy technologies and underwrite the labor costs of transitioning to this new technology. McCain would not charge for these pollution credits, though would consider following a plan similar to Obama's years from now.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, domestic policy adviser to the McCain campaign, described McCain's intention of focusing on the vulnerabilities to our economy, environment and national security that our nation's reliance on foreign oil has caused. Holtz-Eakin stated that this reliance puts us at the mercy of leaders who do not share the same values as the United States, including Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez. As such, McCain advocates new oil and gas development on US shores, though not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He also favors research into new technologies to ease this dependence. Conversely, Obama is opposed to offshore exploration, favoring higher auto emissions standards along with a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Despite their different policy preferences, Holstein noted that for the first time both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged that environmental issues can no longer be ignored.

Climate change attacks infrastructure

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) held a discussion on the effects of climate change on Gulf Coast transportation and the New York City water supply. Michael Savonis, the air quality team leader of the Federal Highway Administration, said that those working in transportation are frequently conservative because of the billions of dollars involved, so considerations of investing in climate change preparation are tentative. But, as transportation infrastructure ages, climate change must be considered in building new roads, bridges, railways, and ports. The effects of climate change in the Gulf Coast area include a rise in average temperature between two and four degrees and a 50 percent increase in days with temperatures over 90 degrees. He said that as a result more than 2400 miles of roadways in the Gulf Coast area are at risk of permanent flooding as well as 75 percent of freight and non-freight port facilities. Because of the increase in heat, asphalt wears faster, train rails buckle more, and aircraft performance decreases.

On the topic of New York City’s water system, Cynthia Rosenzweig, the senior research scientist at the National Air and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space, said that as temperatures increase, water quality goes down and freshwater becomes less available. As sea water levels increase, there is more stress on water treatment plants and more groundwater pollution. She said that changes made in preparation of climate change will not only be in infrastructure, but also in management, insurance, and policy.

Climate change is not just about polar bears

The adoption of the polar bears into the ESA has put a “charismatic face” on the campaign for climate change - polar bears, said Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve University. Adler and others spoke of the negative and positive effects of listing polar bears as a threatened species due to climate change and the shrinking of the sea ice.

Adler said that the main purpose of listing polar bears as threatened animals is merely for informational purposes, so people are aware of what is going on. From a legal standpoint the consequences of this action is that the legislation is not discretionary and that citizens will have the ability to create change through litigation. In the end, the threatened animal listing probably won’t help polar bears, Adler said, but it may work to change the ESA through legal action.

On May 14, 2008, Dirk Kempthorne, interior secretary announced that the Department of the Interior classified polar bears as a threatened species, giving them protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This was the first listing of a species under the ESA where a threat was identified as anthropogenic climate change. In the discussion today, experts discussed the ramifications of this new classification of polar bears.

Bryan Arroyo, assistant director for the Endangered Species program at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said that people can no longer dispute the validity of climate change. It has been proven with the best of our scientific abilities, with a 90 percent probability, that climate change is influenced by the human release of green house gases. While the science is not final or perfect, it is the best that is available right now and must be acted upon, Arroyo said.

Arroyo said that climate change is not an issue for the United States, but a global challenge that needed to be dealt with. He said that climate change is “not just about polar bears” but that it affects every aspect of human life. There is a documented lessening of sea ice, a 39 percent reduction from 1999-2000 and the prediction is that ice will recede further. Arroyo called for a comprehensive review of the ESA, which hasn’t been reviewed in 16 years.

Climate change laws critical to survival say senators

Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) spoke at a news conference in the Upper Senate Park about the upcoming climate legislation. Boxer, chairwoman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that she could not have sent the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act to the floor without a bipartisan effort in the Senate. She presented a graph that showed rising gas prices since 2000. According to Boxer’s chart, in 2000 the price of gas stood at $1.47/gallon. Current gas prices average $3.94/gallon. Boxer added that President Bush opposes the bill because it has the potential to increase gas prices by a total of $0.50 by the year 2030.

Kerry emphasized the importance of the bill, stating that it goes to the core of the problems facing future generations and that it will enhance future legislation. Kerry said that this legislation affects the United States’ ability to survive, declaring “this is a bill and this is an effort whose time has come.”