Spewing fewer greenhouse gases and pollutants in the atmosphere should be reason enough to tighten fuel economy standards in the US, but it seems like the argument goes over better when you also point out how much cash drivers will save.

Reducing short-lived greenhouse gases and other sources of climate pollution could cut warming by half a degree in the next two decades, and by 2050 slow warming by 10 years.

David Gold

Go ahead — call me a hypocrite.  I claim to be a cleantech
venture capitalist yet I tell you here and now that I am not
convinced of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (aka global
warming).  And I will audaciously tell you that my convictions
on climate change in no way run contrary to my strong belief in the
need for a cleantech revolution

Many supporters of clean technologies make it seem as though
anthropogenic climate change is an absolute fact.  To some of
them anthropogenic climate change is almost like a religion where
any debate or doubt is not tolerated.  Some of them may call me
a heretic just for writing this post.

At the same time, those on the other end of the spectrum are equally
religious in their fervor and certainty that anthropogenic global
warming is a fraud.  They are certain that human emissions of
carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases could never impact our
climate.  And they may twist this post to use it as yet another
data point against claims of global warming and added rationale to
do nothing except increase fossil fuel exploration.

In both groups, it is my perception that most have read little about
the topic other than the popular press.  And I find both groups
equally sad in their myopic viewpoints.  If both of these camps
would open their eyes, I suspect there would be much greater
agreement on the need for action on clean technologies rather than
the divisiveness that their polarizing views create.

There are solid scientific theories and extensive data, anchored by
the href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm">UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, that
indicate the possibility that over time man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases could impact the global climate and may have
already begun to do so.  To dismiss them out of hand because
there is some reasonable doubt is irrational.

Similarly, to speak about anthropogenic climate change as a
certainty or to claim that there is no disagreement among scientist
is simply incorrect.  There are large numbers of  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming">
reputable climate scientists who remain unconvinced.  The
reality is that all predictions of global warming are based on very
complex climate models. We can forecast the weather a few days out
with reasonable accuracy but if you try predicting next year’s
summer temperature — let alone long-term global climate conditions
– things fall apart quickly.  Long-term climate models are
anything but accurate.

We know with certainty that past natural occurrences have caused
significant changes to the atmosphere, resulting in climate
changes.  So, there is little question about whether changes in
the atmosphere can cause climate changes.  Rather, the question
is whether man-made emissions are significant enough to cause a
change on their own and to overcome the large natural forces on our
climate that include sun spots, variations in the earth’s orbit, and
volcanoes all of which have not been taken into account in forecasts
of global warming.

Often there is a focus in the media on recent variations in climate
as a source of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. 
Variations in climate over short periods of time are highly suspect
as evidence. While most scientists seem to agree that there have
been increased temperatures and other climate changes over the past
century or so, what cannot be said with certainty is that the
increased CO2 levels caused this as opposed natural climate change
events that have and continue to happen regularly to our
planet.  Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report, which is the backbone of support for anthropogenic climate
change, found that its confidence in human contribution to such
measured weather events (e.g., temperature, severe storms, sea
level, etc.) could be as low as 50% for most of the events and 66%
for the others ( href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm">pages
23 and 52 of the Technical Summary).  

Climate change is measured over extremely long periods of time – not
a few years or tens of years.  Some of the best long-term data
on historic CO2 concentrations and temperatures is derived from
glacial ice core data that spans back 400,000 years.  This data
shows that the concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today
are strikingly more than 20% higher than any level measured in the
past 400,000 years (See Figure 1).  The recent rapid increase
corresponds well with the industrial age and temperature variations
are in high correlation with CO2 concentrations. This is hard data
to ignore or simply write-off.


Figure 1 – Data from
Vostok Ice Core (400,000 years)

Figure 2 –Estimated CO2
and Temperature Changes over 500+ Million Years

But interestingly over longer periods, the level of CO2 today is far
below the estimated levels during many times in history (Figure 2)
raising the possibility that the current spike may have other
natural contributors.  And the correlation between temperature
and CO2 that seems so apparent in the 400,000-year ice core data
becomes much less clear when looking over many millions of years.

While most scientists seem to believe that, in isolation, increased
CO2 concentrations create an increased “greenhouse” effect whereby
the CO2 acts like a blanket, preventing more of the heat radiated by
the earth from going back into space, at what concentration level
and over what time period remains a point of uncertainty and debate.
In addition, how other factors that may occur with warming such as
increased moisture and clouds as well as changes in absorption of
CO2 into the ocean at varying temperatures will affect the warming
dynamic and other climate change is href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/26/pielke-sr-on-new-spencer-and-braswell-paper/">much
more uncertain.


The bottom line
is that we won’t truly know if man has caused climate change until
after it has already occurred for a very long period of time.

And that’s the rub.  The theoretical costs to the human race of
global warming are high: rising ocean levels, decreased polar ice,
increased severe weather and significant changes in precipitation
patterns.  If they occurred to a significant degree, all could
have sizeable economic and health implications.  But there is
no certainty that we will ever pay such a price. More compelling is
what we know with near-certainty:

• Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they do
  pollute.   Reduction of pollution is always a good
  thing.  And with booming energy demand in China and India,
  fossil fuels are a resource that will become scarcer and more
  expensive.  You can argue about the pace, but few argue
  that it will happen.    Even oil rich countries
  such as Saudi Arabia have begun to accept this fact.
• Increased sources of cost-effective energy and more
  energy-efficient consumption have and will continue to lead to
  increased standards of living.
• Nations with greater diversity of energy sources have greater
  economic and national security.
• The U.S. Defense Department believes that climate change will
  impact our national security.
• If anthropogenic global warming is real, by the time we start
  paying the price for the damage we have done it will be too late
  to turn things back quickly.

To claim with
certainty that man is causing climate change or to claim there is
no risk of anthropogenic climate change are equally incorrect and
equally polarizing.

While it is not certain, there is evidence that suggests that human
emissions of greenhouse gases may be changing our climate in ways
that could have dramatic impacts.  We can do nothing and roll
the dice that everything can be OK.  Or we can take steps to
diversify our energy sources away from fossil fuels and increase our
energy efficiency, thereby not only reducing the risk of
anthropogenic climate change but also increasing the robustness of
our economy and our national defense.

Although there should be debate about the specifics of how to best
advance the availability and utilization of cleaner technologies, style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">support for
cleantech innovation should be the ultimate bipartisan issue
without the divisiveness created by talking about anthropogenic
climate change as if it is a fact or as if it is fiction. 

David Gold is an entrepreneur and engineer with national public
policy
experience who heads up cleantech investments for Access Venture
Partners (www.accessvp.com). 
This
article
was
first published on his blog, href="http://www.greengoldblog.com/">www.greengoldblog.com.

David Gold

Go ahead — call me a hypocrite.  I claim to be a cleantech
venture capitalist yet I tell you here and now that I am not
convinced of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (aka global
warming).  And I will audaciously tell you that my convictions
on climate change in no way run contrary to my strong belief in the
need for a cleantech revolution

Many supporters of clean technologies make it seem as though
anthropogenic climate change is an absolute fact.  To some of
them anthropogenic climate change is almost like a religion where
any debate or doubt is not tolerated.  Some of them may call me
a heretic just for writing this post.

At the same time, those on the other end of the spectrum are equally
religious in their fervor and certainty that anthropogenic global
warming is a fraud.  They are certain that human emissions of
carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases could never impact our
climate.  And they may twist this post to use it as yet another
data point against claims of global warming and added rationale to
do nothing except increase fossil fuel exploration.

In both groups, it is my perception that most have read little about
the topic other than the popular press.  And I find both groups
equally sad in their myopic viewpoints.  If both of these camps
would open their eyes, I suspect there would be much greater
agreement on the need for action on clean technologies rather than
the divisiveness that their polarizing views create.

There are solid scientific theories and extensive data, anchored by
the href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm">UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, that
indicate the possibility that over time man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases could impact the global climate and may have
already begun to do so.  To dismiss them out of hand because
there is some reasonable doubt is irrational.

Similarly, to speak about anthropogenic climate change as a
certainty or to claim that there is no disagreement among scientist
is simply incorrect.  There are large numbers of  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming">
reputable climate scientists who remain unconvinced.  The
reality is that all predictions of global warming are based on very
complex climate models. We can forecast the weather a few days out
with reasonable accuracy but if you try predicting next year’s
summer temperature — let alone long-term global climate conditions
– things fall apart quickly.  Long-term climate models are
anything but accurate.

We know with certainty that past natural occurrences have caused
significant changes to the atmosphere, resulting in climate
changes.  So, there is little question about whether changes in
the atmosphere can cause climate changes.  Rather, the question
is whether man-made emissions are significant enough to cause a
change on their own and to overcome the large natural forces on our
climate that include sun spots, variations in the earth’s orbit, and
volcanoes all of which have not been taken into account in forecasts
of global warming.

Often there is a focus in the media on recent variations in climate
as a source of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. 
Variations in climate over short periods of time are highly suspect
as evidence. While most scientists seem to agree that there have
been increased temperatures and other climate changes over the past
century or so, what cannot be said with certainty is that the
increased CO2 levels caused this as opposed natural climate change
events that have and continue to happen regularly to our
planet.  Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report, which is the backbone of support for anthropogenic climate
change, found that its confidence in human contribution to such
measured weather events (e.g., temperature, severe storms, sea
level, etc.) could be as low as 50% for most of the events and 66%
for the others ( href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm">pages
23 and 52 of the Technical Summary).  

Climate change is measured over extremely long periods of time – not
a few years or tens of years.  Some of the best long-term data
on historic CO2 concentrations and temperatures is derived from
glacial ice core data that spans back 400,000 years.  This data
shows that the concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today
are strikingly more than 20% higher than any level measured in the
past 400,000 years (See Figure 1).  The recent rapid increase
corresponds well with the industrial age and temperature variations
are in high correlation with CO2 concentrations. This is hard data
to ignore or simply write-off.


Figure 1 – Data from
Vostok Ice Core (400,000 years)

Figure 2 –Estimated CO2
and Temperature Changes over 500+ Million Years

But interestingly over longer periods, the level of CO2 today is far
below the estimated levels during many times in history (Figure 2)
raising the possibility that the current spike may have other
natural contributors.  And the correlation between temperature
and CO2 that seems so apparent in the 400,000-year ice core data
becomes much less clear when looking over many millions of years.

While most scientists seem to believe that, in isolation, increased
CO2 concentrations create an increased “greenhouse” effect whereby
the CO2 acts like a blanket, preventing more of the heat radiated by
the earth from going back into space, at what concentration level
and over what time period remains a point of uncertainty and debate.
In addition, how other factors that may occur with warming such as
increased moisture and clouds as well as changes in absorption of
CO2 into the ocean at varying temperatures will affect the warming
dynamic and other climate change is href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/26/pielke-sr-on-new-spencer-and-braswell-paper/">much
more uncertain.


The bottom line
is that we won’t truly know if man has caused climate change until
after it has already occurred for a very long period of time.

And that’s the rub.  The theoretical costs to the human race of
global warming are high: rising ocean levels, decreased polar ice,
increased severe weather and significant changes in precipitation
patterns.  If they occurred to a significant degree, all could
have sizeable economic and health implications.  But there is
no certainty that we will ever pay such a price. More compelling is
what we know with near-certainty:

• Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they do
  pollute.   Reduction of pollution is always a good
  thing.  And with booming energy demand in China and India,
  fossil fuels are a resource that will become scarcer and more
  expensive.  You can argue about the pace, but few argue
  that it will happen.    Even oil rich countries
  such as Saudi Arabia have begun to accept this fact.
• Increased sources of cost-effective energy and more
  energy-efficient consumption have and will continue to lead to
  increased standards of living.
• Nations with greater diversity of energy sources have greater
  economic and national security.
• The U.S. Defense Department believes that climate change will
  impact our national security.
• If anthropogenic global warming is real, by the time we start
  paying the price for the damage we have done it will be too late
  to turn things back quickly.

To claim with
certainty that man is causing climate change or to claim there is
no risk of anthropogenic climate change are equally incorrect and
equally polarizing.

While it is not certain, there is evidence that suggests that human
emissions of greenhouse gases may be changing our climate in ways
that could have dramatic impacts.  We can do nothing and roll
the dice that everything can be OK.  Or we can take steps to
diversify our energy sources away from fossil fuels and increase our
energy efficiency, thereby not only reducing the risk of
anthropogenic climate change but also increasing the robustness of
our economy and our national defense.

Although there should be debate about the specifics of how to best
advance the availability and utilization of cleaner technologies, style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">support for
cleantech innovation should be the ultimate bipartisan issue
without the divisiveness created by talking about anthropogenic
climate change as if it is a fact or as if it is fiction. 

David Gold is an entrepreneur and engineer with national public
policy
experience who heads up cleantech investments for Access Venture
Partners (www.accessvp.com). 
This
article
was
first published on his blog, href="http://www.greengoldblog.com/">www.greengoldblog.com.

Photo by Chris Willis/CC

Airports need lots of room for planes to leave and land. And airplanes spew a lot of greenhouse gases. Idea: Grow crops on airport property to power the planes, and maybe help offset carbon emissions. It’s an idea that may be taking off in Michigan. Yep, taking off. …Read the full story on TreeHugger

Image: CAP

Oh, politicians. They say the darnedest things. Now, I’d never accuse any congressman of bending the truth myself — I’m just a trusting kind of guy — but when a Pulitzer Prize-winning, nonpartisan fact-checking institution makes such an accusation, I’m inclined to pay attention. Case in point: Fred Upton (R-MI) has been in the news lately for undertaking legislation that would revoke the scientific finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health — and preventing the EPA from <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/…Read the full story on TreeHugger

Related Blogs

• Related Blogs on case in point
• Halo Monitoring » Case In Point Magazine features Dorland Health …
• Cake Decorating

• Related Blogs on fred upton
• River Country Journal – Upton gives congressional tribute to Super …

• Related Blogs on greenhouse gases
• Why an EPA Rule for Traditional Pollutants Matters for Greenhouse …

Photo: RPJ

Ah, China. It’s the giant emissions-belching, renewable energy-investing behemoth that everyone loves to analyze from their armchairs. Yes, it’s the number one emitter of greenhouse gases. But it’s also dumping more money into cleantech than anyone else. Yes, it still puts a coal plant online every week or so. But then it pulls off stuff like this: According to the Chinese government (not always the most reliable source), it has met its goal of slashing nationwide energy efficiency by an impressive 20% over the last 5…Read the full story on TreeHugger

The Murkowski amendment, which is currently heading to the Senate floor for a vote, is around one sentence long. It’s simple, and potentially devastating. It’s solely stated goal is overturning the endangerment finding filed by the EPA that ruled greenhouse gases are a harmful pollutant, and threaten public well-being. Which would both effectively stop the EPA from being able to clamp down on the nation’s heaviest greenhouse gas polluters and toss Obama’s new, highly touted national fuel economy standard into the trash heap…Read the full story on TreeHugger

by Richard T. Stuebi

I get a kick out of trite little lists that I can quickly report on and provoke some thinking and conversation.

And so it is that I recently came across the “Top Ten Energy Myths”, as suggested by Thomas Tanton, a fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

As listed in the table of contents, the ten myths are:

1. Most of our energy comes from oil.
2. Most of our oil comes from the Middle East.
3. We have no choice but to import vast quantities of oil.
4. Offshore oil production imposes environmental risks.
5. Reducing our peroleum (sic) use through alternative energies like solar and wind will increase U.S. energy security
6. Energy companies will not invest in clean reliable energy.
7. Renewable energies will soon replace most conventional energy sources.
8. The U.S. consumes large amounts of energy and thus emits a disproportionate amount of the world’s greenhouse gases.
9. Federal mandates for higher-mileage cars means less energy consumption
10. Forcing drivers to use alternative fuels will help solve global warming.

As Taunton notes in the introduction, Mark Twain is attributed to have said that “it ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know that just ain’t so.”

And so it is: some facts are myths. But, then again, some facts are factual too, and some claimed facts are myths. For instance, at the conclusion of a brief commentary on these top ten myths in the February issue of Power, Taunton presents as “fact” that “increased oil production can have green results”, with the supporting claim that “new drilling technology, developed by private energy companies, has greatly reduced the risk of oil spills.”

Uhhhh…..

I guess the moral of the story here is that readers have to be pretty discerning when considering the writings of thought-shapers, to not accept commentary as absolute, definitive and permanently correct, but rather to look between the lines in identifying biases and competencies that underlie their arguments. And, if a writer is neither competent to discuss the topic, nor unconflicted in discussing the topic, readers are well-advised to not put a lot of trust in the writer’s opinions.

Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of NorTech Energy Enterprise, the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

photo via EPA

The pundits are saying that the vote on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s amendment to upend the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which says the CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the planet, could be a harbinger of things to come on the Senate climate and energy bill. This is probably not the case, since the Murkowski language could never get through the House and the president wouldn’t sign it. Nonetheless, EPA chief Lisa jackson posted a blog today on the Read the full story on TreeHugger