A few months ago, I read a fascinating (and troubling) report from a panel of American transportation professionals who visited China in September 2007.   While there, they met with Chinese national, regional, and local officials and business leaders, and toured a number of ports and other facilities to see how goods are being transported (and exported) in the Chinese economy.  The report is available from the Transportation Research Board. 

Some of the American panel’s conclusions include: that China expects to continue growing rapidly; that China has a national strategy for the transportation, including freight; and that China’s highly centralized state power has made it easier for the nation to build projects rapidly, without getting derailed by such concerns as environmental impacts. 

Travel can broaden the mind; it can also reinforce what one was predisposed to believe.  In that regard, one of the panel’s most telling comments is this statement:

"There was a strong perception that the United States lacks the political will to invest in infrastructure and could not deliver needed investments in infrastructure in a timely manner even if desired. China is viewed as being very proactive with respect to infrastructure provision by building for the future and clearly stating in their strategic plans what will be built and when; the United States is perceived as being very reactive."

The panel report also offers some practical insights – the US has a strong advantage in our rail network; US port capacity, rather than foreign port capacity, is the key drag on volume of imports into the US; widening of the Panama Canal is likely to increase pressure on already strained East Coast ports. 

Largely overlooked by the panel is the enormous price China is paying – in ecological and human health and social instability – for prioritizing engagement in global markets above sustainability.  The report omits any discussion of the likely impacts of climate change regulation.  That’s a striking gap, since the massive increases in truck, rail, and shipping imagined by the panel aren’t reconcilable with the reality of massive carbon reductions.  It seems to us that there’s a strong argument for United States to adopt a coherent national freight transportation strategy – it will take a proactive strategy to keep the current level of goods moving at much lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions – but the vision of rapidly ever-expanding volumes of freight, with bigger cargo ships, busier ports, more diesel trucks, and many more roads, is nuts.

Our friends over at Environment North Carolina have put together a great little video postcard to send to decision-makers regarding global climate change. The clips came from interviews at this spring's Take Action Tour and feature activists from around the state expressing their concerns regarding this "hot" topic.

From our good friends at 1Sky:

"On Friday June 6, moments after a major policy debate on climate change, 1Sky volunteers delivered more than 100 murals calling for bold action to Congressional offices on Capitol Hill. The murals were created over Mother’s Day weekend by families and communities in 43 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico."

Check out this short video capturing the big day:

This weekend I was literally able to touch my work, and as I stood looking at our beautiful Outer Banks it touched me deep in my soul. I found myself in Manteo this past weekend for the fifth stop of the Take Action Tour on Climate Change. I've been traveling around the state for the past several months talking to lots of concerned North Carolinians in Winston-Salem, Wilmington, Charlotte, Asheville, and this coming weekend in Raleigh.

But this trip was different. As I drove East towards Manteo I thought about how this area of the state could one day be ground zero for the impacts of climate change. North Carolina has a lot of low-lying areas that could easily be impacted by the slightest rise in sea level or a major storm surge that brings water inland.

The first day I did get go stick my toes in the ocean for a bit and I was thrilled to see that the Coquina Beach bathhouse was being powered by the wind! The plaque in front of the windmill talked about how in the past wind was the only source of power in that area. It reads: "Harnesssing the power of wind is not new to this area. In the 18th century, coastal communities did not have running water or electricity, so they used the only source readily available to them to grind grain and to pump water: wind."

As I stood looking at the windmill from the beach, I was overcome with emotion as I thought how that tiny windmill generating about 6,000 kilowatt-hours is helping to save the very beach it overlooks.

After our presentation on Saturday the group of us went to eat at Sen. Basnight's restaurant, which was close by. We were all delighted when he came by our table to say hello and stay to chat with us for a bit. We were able to talk with him about the work we all are doing and we got to hear about all the eco-friendly things he is employing at his restaurant. Everything from recycling, to composting, to several large cisterns capturing water, to the beautiful osprey nest, to a portion of the parking area that's pervious to giving leftover veggie oil to the local biofuel folks. I was also pleased to hear that the food is all local and fresh with Sen. Basnight himself picking up veggies from the farm on his way back from Raleigh.

My last day I decided that since I was so close I would venture down to the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. I felt compelled to do this because of a comment one of our speakers Bill Holman had said the day before about how the moving of the lighthouse was proof that we can and will adapt to a changing environment. As I set out south along through the Outer Banks it struck me how narrow some of these islands are.

In places there really isn't much more than a big sand dune with grass and beautiful flowers. Once I arrived at the lighthouse, I climbed to the top to get a good look a things. I chatted with the rangers who showed me where the lighthouse use to stand. They said that the distance we were from its original position is the same distance the ocean used to be from it when it was first built. They then told me that the island is actually growing towards the southwest.

Inside the museum there was an exhibit dedicated to how the shoreline has changed. I stood there, again overwhelmed with emotion and frustration because it seems so many people don't understand this...and there it is on the museum exhibit...these islands shift and change. Yet there are people wanting to fight it and build concrete barriers to protect their homes. Legislation before the NC General Assembly would allow them to protect their own interests while causing more erosion further down the islands. (You can take action to stop this by clicking here.)

The display read: "The coast of the Outer Banks moves. The shore erodes, but builds up elsewhere. The foundation of the first lighthouse is now underwater; armor rock has been placed to protect the current one. Man tries to slow the movement, but finally is forced to adapt."

Very powerful words right there in the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse museum.

While I did enjoy sticking my toes in the ocean I did have some profound moments of connection with the places I visited. What will happen to this beautiful place if we don't reduce our global warming pollution?

Since mid-April I have been touring around the state talking to hundreds of concerned North Carolinians about how climate change is impacting and will impact our state as well as ways individuals can help through making personal choices, being an advocate, and/or lobbying decision-makers. This Saturday we wrap-up the tour in Raleigh at the Museum of Natural Sciences from 2pm - 4pm.  If you are in the Triangle please plan to join us for this exciting line up of speakers:

• Climate Change: Importance To North Carolina - Professor Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences North Carolina State University
• Adapting to Climate Change - Dr. Stanley R. Riggs, Distinguished Research Professor at East Carolina University
• Establishing a Clean Cars Program in NC - Elizabeth Ouzts, State Director of Environment NC
• Ways You Can Make A Difference - Veronica Butcher, 1Sky NC Organizer for NC Conservation Network
  

By now you may have heard that the long-awaited Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act did not pass in the U.S. Senate last week. Now for some good news: A new bill introduced on Wednesday by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) looks like a promising alternative. Rep. Markey's Investing in Climate Action Policy Act (iCAP bill) would cut carbon emissions 85% below 1990 levels by 2050, auction 100% of pollution permits by 2020, and invest in green workforce training, among other things.

But as we just witnessed, no bill will have a chance of becoming law unless we continue to demand bold action from our leaders in Washington, D.C. Click here to find your members of congress and ask them for their support of iCap!

So what's at stake for you when it comes to climate change? Share your story with us and help paint a national picture of the climate movement by putting a local, personal face on the climate challenge. Let us know why you are concerned and/or what changes you have made in your life. By putting a face on climate change that our political leaders will understand, you'll help them see: America is ready for bold climate solutions. Share your thoughts below or click here to get on the map!

Well, times are a-changing. I must be turning into the old-timer who always talks about "when she was a kid" how much less expensive things were. You know, postage, gas, gum. The essentials. I remember very vividly in highschool when my friend finally got her license, we would drive over the county line into Union County (we were living in Charlotte, NC), and fill up her tank for 89 cents a gallon.

89 CENTS A GALLON! Ok, adjust for inflation and all that, but STILL. This was only 13 years ago, after all.

If you're still looking for ways to use less gas, check out this article: 101 Ways to Use Less Gas by EcoTrekker. They've broken down the tips into categories to make them easy to sift through and pick the options that work best for you.

Also, if you haven't already, take action to support clean car legislation in North Carolina. Cleaner cars means fewer emissions, and saving money at the pump!

I gotta know. If you have an SUV, do you LUV it? Or are you just stuck with it, unable to sell it? Or do you feel you "need" it? CNN wants to know, too. They had readers send in comments on why they have SUV's. Lots of the folks said they can't sell it, lots said they needed the space, but there of course were some really off-the-wall responses as well. Anyway, I thought we could do our own little poll...so tell us: what's the deal with your SUV LUV?

Join the NC Conservation Network on the Take Action Tour to learn how a changing climate can impact North Carolina, hear about ways our decision-makers can address these problems, and discover ways you can help influence our leaders to make wise choices.

Click on the city below for more details on the tour:

April 26th 1:00pm - 3:00pm Winston-Salem

May 3rd 1:00pm - 3:00pm Wilmington

May 17th 1:00pm - 3:00pm Charlotte  

May 31st 1:00pm - 3:00pm Asheville

June 7th 3:00pm - 5:00pm Manteo  

June 14th 2:00pm - 4:00pm Raleigh

For more information on the tour or to become a local partner, please email Veronica Butcher at veronica[at]ncconservationnetwork.org. 

[This blog entry has been cross posted from Toxic Free North Carolina's weblog, Fair Ground, where it was originally posted by Billie.]

I was already a big skeptic of biofuels before today. Using cropland to grow giant monocultures that are then burned as fuel instead of fed to people seems like a not-so-hot idea - think of the pesticides! More mono-cropping means more chemical pesticides and fertilizers that end up harming downwind and downstream communities and ecosystems. Yuck!

Today, I learned that two recent studies confirm that in addition to being a source of pesticide pollution, biofuels aren't actually preventing global warming either. Princeton University and The Marshall Fund published a study in the journal Science, and The Nature Conservancy has put out a study with similar conclusions.

From an article in The Washington Post on these findings:

"(...) As the study from the Nature Conservancy warns, 'converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace.' There are other negative effects. Massive amounts of water are needed to irrigate cornfields, setting up potential competition between farms and homes. The runoff of pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers used by farmers could lead to increased pollution and oxygen-depleted waterways. The natural gas used to make the fertilizer adds to the carbon deficit created by biofuels.

An essay in the May-June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs by two professors from the University of Minnesota highlighted still another problem: The biofuels craze could starve people. "By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world," they wrote. "If oil prices remain high -- which is likely -- the people most vulnerable to the price hikes brought on by the biofuel boom will be those in countries that both suffer food deficits and import petroleum."

Will someone please get the memo to decision makers in Washington who are pouring money into biofuels right now?? Eep!

It used to be easy for me to stand waist-deep in the ocean, feel the salt water mist on my face, the sand between my toes, and the wind through my hair, and think about the vastness and powerfulness of our oceans. To me it used to seem almost surreal, that there could exist this seemingly indestructible giant mass of water that literally stretched to the ends of the earth.

But as I've gotten older, and learned more about the constant abuse that our oceans take, my view of them has changed. Now, they seem much more vulnerable to me, and these days when I stand waist-deep in the water, I wonder what will be left for my children, and my children's children.

A recent article from the Charlotte Observer highlights a study that was done in part by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill regarding the harmful effects that human activities have on our oceans.

"A widely held view for much of the 20th century was that the Earth's oceans are so deep and vast that they can absorb humankind's pollution-bearing abuse without adverse consequences.

Now a new report shows the effects of that benighted view: Every square kilometer of the Earth's oceans is affected by human activities -- and more than 40 percent of the oceans show medium to very-high-impact threats."

The study took into consideration many different types of human-abuse factors such as runoff from fertilizer, global climate change, shipping, and overfishing. To see which parts of the oceans are most affected, view the entire study [pdf] as it was published in Science magazine. Be sure to check out page 2 of the report which features a global map, highlighting the parts of the ocean most affected by human impacts.

Just past the top of a roller coaster, as you start down the steep slope, there’s a an exhilarating and terrifying instant when you’re not moving fast yet but you can feel yourself accelerating and know the plunge is inevitable, and you just have to hope you’ll stay on the rails when you reach the bottom.

In recent weeks, there’s been a fair amount of media coverage of Arctic ice melting.   A bunch of the comments by scientists have sounded like a slow-motion version of that roller-coaster feeling – last summer and this winter, we’re seeing events in the Arctic that are ‘shocking’ and ‘disturbing’.  An article in today’s Vancouver Province notes that sea ice in the Beaufort Sea has developed unusually large cracks this winter, some over 60 miles wide.  (The Canada Ice Service has posted a remarkable day by day animation, constructed from NOAA images, that shows splits in the ice from December 7 through this week).

The inevitability part comes from the fact that sunlight falling on open water (as opposed to ice) creates a positive feedback loop:

"Arctic ice reflects close to the 95 per cent of solar radiation that hits it. Once the ice melts away, seawater absorbs the heat instead, later releasing it back to the atmosphere, a process that will speed global warming….The phenomenon is already at play in the Beaufort…..[T]he extra heat absorbed by the sea water last summer delayed the formation of new ice last fall by many weeks."

With a roller coaster, thanks to safety inspections, you can be pretty sure that, in fact, the cars will stay on the tracks.  That’s not true with climate.  It’s pretty clear that actions we take in the next few years to reduce carbon emissions can still have a significant impact on total warming, but it sure looks like a chain of inevitable consequences has already been set in motion in the Arctic.    

On Wednesday President Bush signed an energy bill that increased fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, with the apparent blessings of the auto industry. The very next day the President’s Environmental Protection Agency denied states the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Coincidence? No, politics. As the New York Times points out:

“Industry analysts and environmental groups said the E.P.A. decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Auto industry leaders issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than California would have.”

The energy bill included standards that will raise fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.  The California ‘Pavley’ law would require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.  While it is true that increasing fuel efficiency means less carbon dioxide emitted per mile driven, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council:

“Let's be clear: the California standard is stronger and more effective than the 35-mile-per-gallon floor established in the new energy law.”

Under the Clean Air Act, California has the ability to set its own air regulations at a higher standard than federal law, and other states can opt to adopt California’s stronger standards. But first California must get a waiver from the EPA, and this is what they just denied. The NRDC again:

“This rejection represents bald-faced political interference with California’s decades-long authority to enforce its own clean air rules.”

Not only that, but it is a blatant disregard for the seriousness of the climate crisis we are facing.  Bush claims that his rather moderate increase in fuel economy which gives the auto industry 13 years to get there is an adequate step to address global warming. I don’t think so. My hybrid car gets 42 miles per gallon today. 

16 states have adopted California’s Pavley greenhouse gas standards but implementation has been tied up in court from auto industry lawsuits. Earlier this year two federal courts ruled against the auto industry, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority and obligation to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant.  States and environmental groups are lining up to sue the EPA over their denial of California’s waiver.  

NC has the opportunity to adopt the Pavley standards too – in fact a state advisory panel to the legislature has recommended we do – and join the fight to do the right thing.  We need to move beyond politics, beyond big money calling the shots, give the power to the people, and get serious about global warming.

I had the great pleasure of hanging out yesterday with my little friend Ainsley. She’s just turned one and is as cute as they come. But to be honest, she was a little grumpy and upset. At first I took it personally and I wondered how we were going to get through the hour – she didn’t want to eat goldfish, or read about puppies, or pretend she was an airplane. I was at a loss.

Then I finally realized, she had some legitimate things to be upset about. Her dad (our own Brian Buzby) was in the other room having a meeting about climate change. Now, you might think she was upset because her dad was in the other room (instead of making goofy daddy faces at her.) That’s what I thought. But we had a little conversation, Ainsley and I, and it turns out she’s mad as hell about climate change and why we’re dragging our societal feet.

To start with, she wanted to know, what’s up with Bali? According to Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore, “My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," where 180 countries are meeting to try to map out a framework for future climate negotiations. The US and other nations that have gotten wealthy off CO2 emissions are, as one article sums it up,

refusing to accept language in a draft document suggesting that industrialized nations consider cutting emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020, saying specific targets would limit the scope of future talks.

Good grief.

Then there’s the Energy Bill in the US Congress. Ainsley agrees with the New York Times who thinks it is shameful that the President is threatening to veto the landmark Energy Bill that passed the House last week because it might require utilities to get serious about renewable energy. In fact, it seems the Senate has already stripped out the renewable energy provision, in an effort to get the bill voted on later today. The bill does include a deal on raising fuel efficiency standards for cars to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That’s indeed a victory, but Ainsley, who will be turning 14 in 2020, thinks it still seems like too little too late.

On the topic of cars, I was able to cheer Ainsley up considerably when we heard the good word that a federal district court ruled yesterday that California does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from car tailpipes. Automakers and the Bush Administration have been fighting California’s “Clean Car” standards which include curbs on CO2 emissions.  As Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder said:

"It’s now time for the Bush Administration’s EPA to get out of the way and grant California the waiver it and other states need in order to move forward with these landmark protections.”

Amen. Ainsley is closely tracking the fate of the so-called Pavley Law (named after California lawmaker Fran Pavley), which is still being held up by the EPA. Several enviro groups in NC will be pushing the NC General Assembly to adopt the California standards in 2008.  That would be one good step forward.

It was a long day for little Ainsley, but before she finally pooped out from all the politics, she reminded me that really the issue is very simple. She wants us – needs us - to get our act together to reduce global CO2 emissions NOW so we don’t leave her a sadly messed up planet.  She’d like to see some polar bears and coral reefs. She’d like there to be less, not more, human suffering in the world. She’d like to be able to say she grew up in an age of enlightenment rather than the dark ages. That’s her take on it anyway. She’d love to read your comments and thoughts when she wakes up from her nap…

Most environmentalists start with sustainability as a first principle.  We recognize that our economy, laws, and social structures can take all sots of forms, but – bottom line – they ultimately must respect ecological reality or they won’t last.  Within this worldview, the question of whether we can afford to stabilize carbon emissions and curb climate change is bizarre – we can’t afford not to.  We shouldn’t cut emissions in a way that is needlessly disruptive or costly, but the first priority needs to be to get off the self-destructive path we’re on (and to make the transition in a way that doesn’t shaft our poor or marginalized neighbors, here at home or around the world).

Still, fear of the costs of curbing emissions still remains an obstacle for some folks – if they admit the science and the need for action, they are afraid they will confront massive costs, and so they simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of climate change.  

An article in this week’s Business Week offers a helpful way for think about this, reviewing different approaches to calculating the costs of limiting carbon emissions:

"If you listen to opponents of action against climate change, the American economy will be brought to its knees by such efforts….Yet a new analysis from McKinsey & Co. not only pegs the price tag for making substantial cuts at just a few billion dollars, it also shows that at least 40% of the reductions bring actual savings to the economy, not costs."

The article also quotes Stephen Schneider, a climatologist from Stanford University, exploring what one of the harshest estimates of costs -- $20 trillion – really means when spread over the next 100 years:

"Schneider ran the numbers, assuming the economy grows at about 2% per year. The seemingly huge $20 trillion price tag works out to "a one-year delay in being 500% richer," he says. In other words, paying the price to reduce climate change would mean Americans would have to wait until 2101 to be as rich as they otherwise would have been in 2100. To Schneider, that's a minuscule price to pay for saving the planet from the dangers of global warming. "Are you out of your mind? Who wouldn't take that?" he says."

So, next time you run into a climate change denier – and you get the sense that it’s because they just can’t deal with the implications of climate change being real – share this news: yes, we have to change; yes, it will cost a lot; but no, it doesn’t have to be crushing.  

It’s been a big month for reports on climate change, headlined by the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released last week.  

Somewhat lost in the hoopla was another, North America specific document, the First State of the Carbon Cycle Report [pdf], issued by the US Climate Change Science Program.  Bloggers and news reporters have picked up two take away messages from the Carbon Cycle report:

• North America accounts for 27% of global carbon emissions, and most of that (85%) is from the United States; and

• We’re emitting three times more carbon than North America’s ecosystems can absorb each year.

That adds up to a need for very substantial cuts in carbon emissions.  No surprise there, but hopefully the report will provide an additional reason for member of Congress to support aggressive carbon reductions.

This might quite possibly be one of the funniest and most telling stories about climate change skeptics.  They’re so desperate for any scientific evidence to dispute humanity’s link to climate change that they’ll trumpet a totally fictitious report from a non-existent science journal.

"It must have seemed almost too good to be true to climate skeptics who doubt mounting evidence that global warming is man-made — finally, a report showing that nature is to blame.

Only one problem — it’s a hoax."

I stumbled across a series of videos that I found extremely interesting and entertaining. They're done by a physics teacher (and self-proclaimed nerd) who sets out to show why action is needed now on global climate change; however his method of demonstrating this is a different approach than the atmospheric science-based method of Al Gore. I encourage you all to take a look at the video below and let us know what you think.

If you have time, I strongly recommend you check out the follow-up videos. In "Patching Holes #1" he talks about the response he got to the first video and goes over some of the "holes" viewers pointed out. In "Patching Holes #2" [note his "Conjunction Junction" shirt!] he covers up his "holes" with more explanation and analysis. And in "Patching Holes #3" he talks about the scientific community's stance on global warming and prompts folks to start passing the word along today.

The videos really go by fast and are very funny, so check them out and post a comment on what you think about his analysis!

Today the Supreme Court made an exciting ruling regarding the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. According to a New York Times article,

The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.

This is big news because it dismisses the Bush administration's viewpoint that the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) doesn't have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant through the Clean Air Act. While this is certainly not the end for the ongoing discussions surrounding the issue of global warming, it's certainly a step in the right direction.

Final word or not, today’s decision was bound to please environmentalist groups. “The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we have been saying all along: the Clean Air Act gives E.P.A. authority to fight global warming,” said Howard Fox, a lawyer for Earthjustice, who argued the case before a federal appeals court.

To see the U.S. Supreme Court slip opinion (decision), click here (pdf).