China’s greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to grow at an alarming rate. In 2010, emissions were 20% higher than the United States’ but by 2015, emissions could top 50% higher, according to Ye Qi, the director of the Climate Policy Initiative and professor of environmental policy at  Tsinghua University.

Despite China aggressively reducing energy intensity and building renewable energy capacity, total energy use has grown dramatically. ”There is no question now China is the largest emitter, and the gap between Number 1 and Number 2 is enlarging,” Qi said as part of a Brookings Institution panel discussion on China’s low-carbon development.

Source: Climatewire

Source: World Bank Photo Collection

The Bainbridge Island electricity dashboard

Bainbridge Island, a short ferry ride from Seattle, was recently given a choice by Puget Sound Energy. Either cut electricity consumption or pay for a new electrical substation for the island to meet rising electricity demand. It turns out that the average Bainbridge household was using 60% more electricity than the regional average, meaning there was a lot of potential energy efficiency gains to be had.

With a grant from the Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Neighborhood Program, the city created an online information network to monitor island-wide electricity use and notify residents when peak demand was reaching the maximum allowed level. When this occurs (typically during a morning or evening hour in the winter), residents are able to view the island’s current electricity consumption with an online dashboard, and adjust their individual use accordingly. The first winter of the program, these efforts led to a 10 MW decrease in peak electricity consumption.

The program also offers free home energy audits (RePower Bainbridge has so far completed 41% of the island’s homes) which, along with energy efficiency upgrades, lower energy costs for residents. Check out the video from Climate Solutions below:

RePower Bainbridge from Climate Solutions on Vimeo.

Half of the world’s population now lives in cities. By 2050, it is estimated that this ratio will grow to over 75%. Put another way, 3.5 billion people live in cities now. Global population is project to reach 9 billion by 2050. That means that cities will need to the housing and infrastructure to absorb upwards of 2.5 billion people within the next 30 years. It is a staggering thought, and one of the great challenges of our time.

An excellent new film on this topic is Urbanized, a documentary by Gary Hustwit. Tackling such a broad subject of urban design in 90 minutes is an ambitious endeavor, but Hustwit largely succeeds.

Viewers are transported around the world, from the slums of Mumbai to the deserted streets of Detroit, where solutions of all scales are presented. From bus rapid transit and bikeways in Bogota to a guerilla art project in New Orleans, the key message from Hustwit is that people and the social fabric are what make cities great, and some of the best solutions to urban sustainability come from deep community involvement.

The film features interviews with some of the heavy hitters of urban planning and architecture, such as Rem Koolhaas and Sir Norman Foster. Many of the cities highlighted are familiar – for example the bike networks of Copenhagen or the High Line in New York. But the film also presents unfamiliar urban solutions, such as novel concepts for subsidized housing in Santiago, Chile and participatory community design of walkways in the townships on the edge of Cape Town.

With cities responsible for upwards of 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, they have a major role to play in climate change solutions. Luckily, urban residents generally have a smaller carbon footprint than suburban and rural residents. By implementing greater building and energy efficiency improvements, cities could become a model for solving climate change. And guess what, all of that urban fabric will have to be planned and designed.

Former president Bill Clinton, speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting, called out climate deniers and their champions in the GOP.

He said, “If you’re an American, the best thing you could do is to make it politically unacceptable to engage in denial. We look like a joke. You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in our country if you admit that the scientists are right … It’s really tragic. We need the debate in America, and every country, between people who are a little bit to the right and a little bit to the left about what the best way is to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions … and we can’t have this conversation because we’ve got to deny it?”

See the video below:

Has President Obama done enough to combat climate change? Former Vice President Al Gore certainly doesn’t think so, and has ignited a firestorm in the media following his article in Rolling Stone in which he lays into Obama for his mediocre achievements in climate and energy policy.

“Firestorm” may be a bit of a stretch, but his article is very critical of United States politics, mainstream media, and the mediocre climate policy achievements of President Obama, and has subsequently garnered a fair bit of attention from climate journalists and bloggers. If you haven’t had a chance to read it, it is worth your time. Mother Jones has a summary of the key points.

Gore makes some salient points, particularly in regards to the gravity of the climate crisis:

“It is time to face reality. We ignored reality in the marketplace and nearly destroyed the world economic system. We are likewise ignoring reality in the environment, and the consequences could be several orders of magnitude worse. Determining what is real can be a challenge in our culture, but in order to make wise choices in the presence of such grave risks, we must use common sense and the rule of reason in coming to an agreement on what is true.”

And the gap between perception and reality for many in America:

“The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable — given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason — of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it.”

There was an interesting debate on the PBS Newshour last night regarding Gore’s article, particularly the attacks he makes on Obama’s climate action/inaction. Watch it here in full:

The gentleman from the American Enterprise Institute makes the same tired claim that in times of economic duress people don’t care about protecting the environment. I would argue that many environmental protections are designed to protect human health, the costs of which are vastly outweighed by the positive human health impacts (one thing that is not up for debate is rising health care costs).

Andy Revkin as always has a unique perspective, as does Bryan Walsh at Time.

Many (myself included) were ecstatic when Obama was elected in 2008 because he represented a 180 degree policy shift on important environmental and energy issues from the Bush administration. Over the past year and a half he has admittedly made some great strides in environmental policy (2 steps forward), but in many other instances he has disappointed the environmental wing of his coalition by approving expansion in fossil fuel extraction in this country and caved in the face of pressure from powerful economic and political interests (1 step back).

In the list of priorities for the people of this country, addressing climate change ranks pretty low. People care more about employment, the economy, gas prices, and national security. It is hard for people to take the long view (as an interesting aside, the makers of this 10,000 year clock are trying to influence the public on this very issue).

Political and economic reality have conspired to drastically limit how quickly this nation has moved toward a sustainable future. Unfortunately the planet isn’t waiting for us to get our act together. Our climate system is rapidly approaching a point of no return. And as evidenced by the large number of extreme weather events over the past few years, we can expect a lot more loss of property and human life in the years to come.

Politics is the art of the possible. Could Obama have pushed a bit harder for stronger national climate policy? Maybe. But I’ll take the achievements our nation has made in an optimistic light and hope for more in the near future.

Prediction: Obama ends his 1st term with a set of achievements that appeal to enough of the electorate to get re-elected, despite having thrown the enviros under the bus. He then uses his 2nd term to really push on the environmental and energy policies that us environmentalists have been clamoring for.

The earthquake and ensuing tsunami that occurred in Japan last month was a horrific event. The ongoing atomic crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power station is also alarming, but I think a good bit of perspective on actual vs. perceived risk is in order before rushing energy decisions that could affect the fate of the planet.

We are facing unprecedented, multiple challenges at once. The first challenge is finding ways in which to dramatically slow the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in order to prevent catastrophic climate change. The second challenge is to meet the growing energy needs of a growing global population. Estimates put energy demand in 2050 at 5 times our current capacity. In order to meet both of these conditions, not only is a massive investment in energy infrastructure required, it needs to be nearly carbon neutral.

Nuclear power is one of the safest and least carbon-intensive forms of electricity that make up a substantial portion of our energy production (note what a depressingly small percentage renewables constitutes). The danger nuclear power poses to human populations is relatively low, even compared with other forms of renewable energy. As a resource, nuclear fuel is inexhaustible for the foreseeable future and provides a stable form of baseload electricity. 28 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine. Contrast that with over 5,000 coal miners that die every year in China. Or the 13,000 people who die every year as a result of burning coal in the U.S.

Another factor is that a standard 1,000 MW coal fired power plant will release 5.2 tons of uranium into the environment per year. While a nuclear power plant may generate 500 tons of nuclear waste each year, this waste is in a concentrated form, and can be sealed and stored away from human populations.

Consider the following two risk scenarios:

1. The potential for radioactive release from a meltdown at a nuclear power station (a very low probability risk).
2. The disrupted weather patterns, floods, droughts, sea level rise, political instability, etc. as a result of climate change (extremely likely, even if dramatic action is taken).

There is a fervent resistance to nuclear energy in many parts of the world. Where are the comparable protests regarding climate change?

Nuclear power isn’t the only solution, but rather part of a suite of solutions that are available. I’m not arguing that we only should build nuclear power – far from it. But a serious evaluation of the risks and benefits of various energy sources needs to be evaluated before choosing an appropriate course of action. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydrocarbons with carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear energy should all be pursued as quickly as possible to reduce GHG emissions and slow climate change.

Unfortunately the political fallout from the Fukushima nuclear accident has led to a number of governments changing their plans regarding current and future nuclear power installations. The German government has shut down its 7 oldest plants, and is delaying plans to extend the life of its 10 others. The Swiss government has suspended plans to build 3 new reactors. The Chinese government has suspended work on 26 reactors under construction.

Switching from nuclear power to coal or gas in these countries, along with a lack of nuclear plant construction elsewhere could be the difference between 2 and 3 degrees C of warming — enough that could activate dangerous tipping points in the global climate system.

Fukushima has illustrated two key of concepts:

1. If it can go wrong, it will.
2. Humans all to often underestimate the magnitude of nature’s fury.

I am not advocating for a blanked push for nuclear power. But look at the facts. Despite the failure of multiple backup cooling systems and human missteps at the plant, no one has died (though numerous injuries). It is therefore critical that nuclear power stations worldwide are re-evaluated to ensure that they are operating at a maximum level of safety. New nuclear plant designs employ more passive safety systems and better take into account human and natural risks. Will there be nuclear accidents in the future? Probably. But it’s a risk I’m willing to take given our society’s need for clean energy.

Nuclear power isn’t perfect, but its better than many of the other options out there. As Mark Lynas said, “a pro-nuclear, pro-renewables, pro-efficiency strategy is the least risky of all, at least as far as the future of the planet is concerned.”

This map shows where increases in sea level could affect New Orleans, Virginia Beach, Va., Miami, Tampa, Fla., New York and Washington, D.C. The colors indicate areas along the coast that are elevations of 1 meter or less (russet) or 6 meters or less (yellow) and have connectivity to the sea. (Map by Jeremy Weiss, University of Arizona)

A team of researchers at the University of Arizona has projected how future sea level rise will impact 180 of the largest coastal cities in the U.S. Their maps show that on average, 9% of land could be submerged by 2100.

“According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that’s where we’re heading,” said lead researcher Jeremy L. Weiss, a senior research specialist in the UA’s department of geosciences. “Impacts from sea-level rise could be erosion, temporary flooding and permanent inundation.”

According to the maps produced on the right, Miami, Virginia Beach, and New Orleans will be particularly hard-hit. What will these cities do? For some, building sea walls to keep out rising waters will be built, but for others, the cost may be too great and residents will be forced to cede their land to the sea.

This map shows where increases in sea level could affect the southern and Gulf coasts of the US. The colors indicate areas along the coast that are elevations of 1 meter or less (russet) or 6 meters or less (yellow) and have connectivity to the sea. (Map by Jeremy Weiss, University of Arizona)

World food prices hit a record high in January – the highest since the FAO began monitoring in 1990. Some experts are saying that the popular protests across the middle east are in part due to these rising food prices. A drought in China that has damaged the winter wheat crop, and flooding in Australia has caused food prices to spike are partly to blame.

Rising food prices were to blame for riots across the globe in 2008. With a rising global population that demands more meat and dairy, a loss of fertile topsoil, and increasing climate extremes due to climate change, expect to see food prices rise further, accompanied by more popular unrest.

Three million years ago, during the mid-Pliocene epoch, sea levels were 100 feet higher than they are today.  During this period, there was no ice in the Northern Hemisphere, no sea ice in the Arctic Ocean nor in Greenland. And global temperatures at that time? Only about four to six degrees warmer than today.

Such figures gave me pause, as I was about 2/3 of the way through A World Without Ice by Henry Pollack a professor of geophysics at the University of Michigan. I thought about the fate of many of the world’s great cities that would lie underwater under such a scenario. London, Jakarta, Bangkok, Mumbai, lower Manhattan – a scary thought but fully within the realm of historical precedence.

This is a book that really goes deep on ice. From tales of early polar explorers to the characteristics of ice on all of the continents, it is an effective way of presenting such an interconnected topic as climate change. Sometimes when reading articles or books by environmentalists, the tone can be annoyingly preachy. Even though I agree with their line of argument, the presentation can be a turn-off. Pollack, on the other hand, crafts his argument deliberately and with an even hand. At times I almost felt like I was sitting in a university lecture hall, in what I imagine would be pretty engaging talk.

An overriding theme of Pollacks narrative is that it is hard to argue with clear evidence that worldwide, just about wherever there is ice, it is showing signs of a warming climate. Ultimately all that melting ice (coupled with thermal expansion of the oceans) leads to sea level rise. While some contrarians and disinformers discuss the merits of a warmer climate, “There is no way that rising seas can be described as beneficial,” Pollack argues.

The title of the book reminded me of A World Without Us – an excellent thought experiment about the fate of the planet (and our stuff) were humans to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow.

Pollack’s tale is vastly more frightening because given the current trajectory our society is on, it will come true.

Source: UIUC Polar Research Group

What is likely the first example of what lies ahead for many coastal communities worldwide, Ventura, CA is beginning its retreat from the ocean. Sea levels are projected to rise at least 45-55 inches this century, wreaking havoc on coastal infrastructure.

Surfers Point, Ventura, CA (Photo: Flickr user Michael McCarty)

20 years ago Ventura built a bike path along the beach next to the famous surf spot Surfers Point, but within only a few years erosion began eating away at the asphalt. Now the city is moving the bike path and a parking lot 65 feet inland and replacing the area with natural dunes in the hopes that it will hold the ocean at bay for at least 50 years.

One option would have been to build hard structures to protect the sea, such as sea walls or laying rocks. But those solutions only work in the short term, deflecting wave energy elsewhere and accelerate sand erosion. Not to mention it would have potentially ruined the point break that draws thousands of surfers each year.

For hundreds of coastal communities in California and elsewhere, “It’s either going to be managed or unmanaged, but it’s going to be retreat,” said Gary Griggs, a coastal geologist at UC Santa Cruz.