Passing the US climate change bill would go down in history as America's first significant step toward curbing carbon emissions
Kate Sheppard
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 19.00 BST
The US House of Representatives is set to vote on a comprehensive climate and energy bill on Friday, a move likely to go down in history as America's first significant step toward curbing planet-warming emissions.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act – the bill's official title – would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and more than 80% by 2050. It would put in place a renewable electricity standard requiring utilities to draw 20% of their power from renewables by 2020. It would also raise efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, and invest $190bn in energy-saving technology by 2025.
That said, the bill is not as tough as most environmentalists would like, or that science dictates is necessary. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said near-term reductions for developed countries need to be in the range of 25%-40% below 1990 levels to avert serious impacts. The US would cut emissions just 4% below 1990 levels under this bill. It allows for a significant portion of emissions reductions to be met by offsets rather than direct reductions, and a large portion of the pollution permits would be given to industry free of charge.
The bill also exempts older coal-fired power plants for a number of years, even though these are the biggest contributor to US emissions, and takes away the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from those plants. It also gives coal companies $60bn to invest in technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions.
Yet the bill is widely viewed as a good start in addressing climate change after years of federal government neglect. It's a bill that can potentially meet the needs of a Congress that often finds political and regional differences hard to overcome in crafting legislation, and is the result of weeks of compromise between its authors – Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts – and members who represent agricultural, industrial, coal and oil-producing states.
The fragile compromise that the authors have struck to get this bill through the House represents the first real opportunity for US action with the potential to pass in both chambers. This would be an historic accomplishment. The House has never before voted on a climate bill, while the Senate has rejected every previous attempt.
The bill also has the support of President Barack Obama, who has called it "historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America". Obama's backing, and strong-arming of apprehensive Democrats by his administration, creates potential for action that has never before existed in Washington politics.
House leaders are still whipping votes as Friday's deadline for passage approaches. But advocates of climate action are gearing up to celebrate a major landmark.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Climate science is by nature uncertain
For climate sceptics, the mere presence of uncertainty is reason enough to doubt. But doubt is not an enemy – it is the stimulus that drives science forward
Adam Corner
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 13.47 BST
It seems the one thing climate change sceptics are certain of is uncertainty, in particular how uncertainty in the predictions of climate models fatally undermines their legitimacy.
So the recent revelation of the UK government's projections of global warming through to 2080 was met, predictably, with some cynicism by the deniers. While some commentators used the detailed projections about possible future UK climate scenarios to underscore why we must take strong action on climate change, the response of climate sceptics was to say that the error bars in the projections made them worthless.
Never mind that the level of uncertainty about mean temperature increase, sea level rise and seasonal rainfall was dealt with in painstaking and meticulous detail in the report. For some, the mere presence of uncertainty was reason enough to doubt. But uncertainty is not an enemy of science that must be conquered – it is the stimulus that drives science forward. As in economic forecasts, medical diagnoses, and policy making, uncertainty runs through climate science like the lettering in sticks of rock.
The good news is that scientists are particularly adept at acknowledging, identifying and modelling it. The Met Office team responsible for the climate projections managed to systematically indicate what they did know, what they didn't know and how confident they were about these judgments. If there's one group of people who have thought long and hard about uncertainty, its climate scientists. But Irene Lorenzoni and her colleagues at the University of East Anglia have shown that people frequently view uncertainty as a reason for inaction on climate change.
Such is the level of scepticism in some quarters that climate scientists are constantly required to apologise for what they don't know, rather than encouraged to communicate what they do.
But uncertainty is not the same as ignorance – which is why the labelling of GM food became mandatory in 2004. The Food Standards Agency did not demand certainty before taking action, although the uncertainty surrounding the risks of genetic modification is far greater than the considered consensus of climate science.
One reason that so much attention is given to the uncertainty associated with climate models is that they form the basis of important and costly policy decisions. But the "precautionary principle" is a well-established method of policy making when uncertainty prevails, on the basis that it is better to be safe than sorry. Could it be that climate sceptics' obsession with uncertainty is simply an unwillingness to accept the consequences of the climate changing – that their lifestyles will have to change as well?
The UK climate projections are not a weather forecast for 3 July 2078. They are a set of scientifically rigorous probabilistic assessments of what the UK climate might be like in, say, 50 years time. But the writers of the report seemed to feel compelled to get their counter-arguments in early. Of course, it is absolutely essential that all uncertainties in climate models are made clear. But it's odd reading a scientific report where the caveats come before the take-home message.
There is one crucial uncertainty, however, that cannot be captured in any climate model: the extent to which action is taken to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases. The irony of the debate surrounding what we can and can't infer from climate models is that they sketch out possible, not inevitable futures. By giving us some idea of what lies ahead, they furnish us with a critical opportunity to change course. Rather than procrastinating about uncertainty – an inescapable fact of life – we should be taking the opportunity to get serious about climate change, and prove the climate models wrong.
• Dr Adam Corner is in the understanding risk research group at Cardiff University
Adam Corner
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 13.47 BST
It seems the one thing climate change sceptics are certain of is uncertainty, in particular how uncertainty in the predictions of climate models fatally undermines their legitimacy.
So the recent revelation of the UK government's projections of global warming through to 2080 was met, predictably, with some cynicism by the deniers. While some commentators used the detailed projections about possible future UK climate scenarios to underscore why we must take strong action on climate change, the response of climate sceptics was to say that the error bars in the projections made them worthless.
Never mind that the level of uncertainty about mean temperature increase, sea level rise and seasonal rainfall was dealt with in painstaking and meticulous detail in the report. For some, the mere presence of uncertainty was reason enough to doubt. But uncertainty is not an enemy of science that must be conquered – it is the stimulus that drives science forward. As in economic forecasts, medical diagnoses, and policy making, uncertainty runs through climate science like the lettering in sticks of rock.
The good news is that scientists are particularly adept at acknowledging, identifying and modelling it. The Met Office team responsible for the climate projections managed to systematically indicate what they did know, what they didn't know and how confident they were about these judgments. If there's one group of people who have thought long and hard about uncertainty, its climate scientists. But Irene Lorenzoni and her colleagues at the University of East Anglia have shown that people frequently view uncertainty as a reason for inaction on climate change.
Such is the level of scepticism in some quarters that climate scientists are constantly required to apologise for what they don't know, rather than encouraged to communicate what they do.
But uncertainty is not the same as ignorance – which is why the labelling of GM food became mandatory in 2004. The Food Standards Agency did not demand certainty before taking action, although the uncertainty surrounding the risks of genetic modification is far greater than the considered consensus of climate science.
One reason that so much attention is given to the uncertainty associated with climate models is that they form the basis of important and costly policy decisions. But the "precautionary principle" is a well-established method of policy making when uncertainty prevails, on the basis that it is better to be safe than sorry. Could it be that climate sceptics' obsession with uncertainty is simply an unwillingness to accept the consequences of the climate changing – that their lifestyles will have to change as well?
The UK climate projections are not a weather forecast for 3 July 2078. They are a set of scientifically rigorous probabilistic assessments of what the UK climate might be like in, say, 50 years time. But the writers of the report seemed to feel compelled to get their counter-arguments in early. Of course, it is absolutely essential that all uncertainties in climate models are made clear. But it's odd reading a scientific report where the caveats come before the take-home message.
There is one crucial uncertainty, however, that cannot be captured in any climate model: the extent to which action is taken to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases. The irony of the debate surrounding what we can and can't infer from climate models is that they sketch out possible, not inevitable futures. By giving us some idea of what lies ahead, they furnish us with a critical opportunity to change course. Rather than procrastinating about uncertainty – an inescapable fact of life – we should be taking the opportunity to get serious about climate change, and prove the climate models wrong.
• Dr Adam Corner is in the understanding risk research group at Cardiff University
Science Museum has a vital role in the climate change debate
One hundred years after it first opened its doors, the Science Museum is more relevant than ever
Chris Rapley
guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 June 2009 00.05 BST
A mischievous deity, determined to confront humanity with an especially vexed challenge, would ensure that the nature of the problem was complex and scientific and that the connection between the underlying personal actions and their consequences was not obvious. The sneaky god would also ensure that convincing evidence for the problem would emerge almost too late for a response, that there would be vested interests motivated to sow doubt and confusion, that there would be no self-correcting market mechanism, and that there would be inadequate or absent instruments and institutions to support effective action.
No wonder then that decarbonising the world's energy system to avoid dangerous climate change is proving to be intractable, for it embodies all these features. Despite the rhetoric and a host of initiatives by individuals, corporations and governments, human carbon emissions continue to increase, with no sign of the essential peak and decline. The latest research indicates that if the maximum does not occur by 2015, we will almost certainly have committed ourselves to changes in weather patterns that will adversely affect our food and water supplies, as well as triggering an ineluctable, long-term rise in world sea level.
One hundred years ago the future looked brighter. Our forebears saw science and engineering as the means to improve the human condition. They celebrated the fruits of industrialisation in cathedrals of innovation, such as the Science Museum. The practitioners were the celebrities of the day, and people flocked to see the wonders that were shaping the future. Many were inspired to become the scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs who designed and built the modern world.
So as the Science Museum enters its second century today, what is its role? I believe little has changed from a century ago, except for the degree of urgency. Our unique collection provides us with a powerful means to make sense of the science that shapes our lives. We seek to raise curiosity and release creativity, and to do so in a way that engages and inspires our visitors to participate in shaping the future.
In particular, our climate change gallery, currently being designed, aims to change the way people think, talk and act about climate change. A glimpse into the museum's enormous reserve collection of objects (only 6% of the collection is on public display), or along the 20km of historical books and technical documentation in our library, can quickly convince of the ability of the scientists and engineers of the world to develop the array of technical solutions that can make a sustainable future possible.
What is not clear, is whether humanity has the capacity to marshal this technical capability and to exploit it in time. This is where the role of the museum as a trustworthy source of information, and its track record of presenting a balanced view of the evidence will be especially valuable in stimulating public debate. With many experts viewing the upcoming UN's Copenhagen Conference in December this year as "the last chance saloon" to put in place the international negotiating mechanism without which a globally coordinated effort cannot take place, the importance of such debate is paramount.
The Science Museum may be 100 years old, but it has never been more relevant.
• Professor Chris Rapley CBE is director of the Science Museum
Chris Rapley
guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 June 2009 00.05 BST
A mischievous deity, determined to confront humanity with an especially vexed challenge, would ensure that the nature of the problem was complex and scientific and that the connection between the underlying personal actions and their consequences was not obvious. The sneaky god would also ensure that convincing evidence for the problem would emerge almost too late for a response, that there would be vested interests motivated to sow doubt and confusion, that there would be no self-correcting market mechanism, and that there would be inadequate or absent instruments and institutions to support effective action.
No wonder then that decarbonising the world's energy system to avoid dangerous climate change is proving to be intractable, for it embodies all these features. Despite the rhetoric and a host of initiatives by individuals, corporations and governments, human carbon emissions continue to increase, with no sign of the essential peak and decline. The latest research indicates that if the maximum does not occur by 2015, we will almost certainly have committed ourselves to changes in weather patterns that will adversely affect our food and water supplies, as well as triggering an ineluctable, long-term rise in world sea level.
One hundred years ago the future looked brighter. Our forebears saw science and engineering as the means to improve the human condition. They celebrated the fruits of industrialisation in cathedrals of innovation, such as the Science Museum. The practitioners were the celebrities of the day, and people flocked to see the wonders that were shaping the future. Many were inspired to become the scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs who designed and built the modern world.
So as the Science Museum enters its second century today, what is its role? I believe little has changed from a century ago, except for the degree of urgency. Our unique collection provides us with a powerful means to make sense of the science that shapes our lives. We seek to raise curiosity and release creativity, and to do so in a way that engages and inspires our visitors to participate in shaping the future.
In particular, our climate change gallery, currently being designed, aims to change the way people think, talk and act about climate change. A glimpse into the museum's enormous reserve collection of objects (only 6% of the collection is on public display), or along the 20km of historical books and technical documentation in our library, can quickly convince of the ability of the scientists and engineers of the world to develop the array of technical solutions that can make a sustainable future possible.
What is not clear, is whether humanity has the capacity to marshal this technical capability and to exploit it in time. This is where the role of the museum as a trustworthy source of information, and its track record of presenting a balanced view of the evidence will be especially valuable in stimulating public debate. With many experts viewing the upcoming UN's Copenhagen Conference in December this year as "the last chance saloon" to put in place the international negotiating mechanism without which a globally coordinated effort cannot take place, the importance of such debate is paramount.
The Science Museum may be 100 years old, but it has never been more relevant.
• Professor Chris Rapley CBE is director of the Science Museum
BP chairman-elect keen to keep green issues at heart of agenda
By Ed Crooks and Andrew Parker
Published: June 26 2009 03:00
Environmental concerns would remain a central issue for BP, the oil group's chairman-designate signalled yesterday with a warning that the world needed to adapt to avoid strain on resources.
Carl-Henric Svanberg, chief executive of Swedish telecommunications equipment maker Ericsson, told the Financial Times that the pace of growth of car ownership and air travel was unsustainable.
"With a normal growth rate, the world's [gross domestic product] will triple by 2050, and we will probably see another 2bn people in the world," he said. "If we continue to do things in the world in the same way as we do today, it will not be so easy for this planet to cope with that. So we have to find more intelligent solutions, and the energy industry is in the centre of that."
BP has been criticised by green campaigners for failing to live up to its "beyond petroleum" slogan, but takes a more active position than many oil companies.
BP surprised investors with the appointment of Mr Svanberg, who has no experience in the industry. However, leading shareholders contacted by the Financial Times yesterday raised no fundamental concerns.
The previous front-runner, Paul Skinner, the former chairman of mining group Rio Tinto, was forced to drop out after protests from shareholders angered by his support for Rio's now abandoned deal with Chinalco.
Mr Svanberg would join the BP board as a non-executive director and chairman-designate on September 1 before taking up his role fully on January 1 next year, the company said.
He replaces Peter Sutherland, chairman since 1997, who has led BP during a period of spectacular growth.
Separately, Ericsson said it had appointed Hans Vestberg, chief financial officer, to replace Mr Svanberg as chief executive.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: June 26 2009 03:00
Environmental concerns would remain a central issue for BP, the oil group's chairman-designate signalled yesterday with a warning that the world needed to adapt to avoid strain on resources.
Carl-Henric Svanberg, chief executive of Swedish telecommunications equipment maker Ericsson, told the Financial Times that the pace of growth of car ownership and air travel was unsustainable.
"With a normal growth rate, the world's [gross domestic product] will triple by 2050, and we will probably see another 2bn people in the world," he said. "If we continue to do things in the world in the same way as we do today, it will not be so easy for this planet to cope with that. So we have to find more intelligent solutions, and the energy industry is in the centre of that."
BP has been criticised by green campaigners for failing to live up to its "beyond petroleum" slogan, but takes a more active position than many oil companies.
BP surprised investors with the appointment of Mr Svanberg, who has no experience in the industry. However, leading shareholders contacted by the Financial Times yesterday raised no fundamental concerns.
The previous front-runner, Paul Skinner, the former chairman of mining group Rio Tinto, was forced to drop out after protests from shareholders angered by his support for Rio's now abandoned deal with Chinalco.
Mr Svanberg would join the BP board as a non-executive director and chairman-designate on September 1 before taking up his role fully on January 1 next year, the company said.
He replaces Peter Sutherland, chairman since 1997, who has led BP during a period of spectacular growth.
Separately, Ericsson said it had appointed Hans Vestberg, chief financial officer, to replace Mr Svanberg as chief executive.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Offshore wind farms could meet a quarter of the UK's electricity needs
Offshore wind has the potential to power every home in the UK and provide up to 70,000 jobs, according to the government
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 10.48 BST
The UK's seas could provide enough extra wind energy to power the equivalent of 19m homes, according to an assessment by the government.
The government's strategic environmental assessment (Sea) confirmed projections that an extra 25GW of electricity generation capacity could be accommodated in UK waters.
This would be in addition to the 8GW of wind power already built or planned offshore, bringing the potential total electricity capacity of offshore wind to 33GW – enough to power every household in the UK.
According to the government, offshore wind has the potential to meet more than a quarter of the UK's electricity needs, provide the UK with up to 70,000 new jobs and generate £8bn a year in revenue.
The findings of the Sea mean the crown estate can push ahead with round three of leasing UK waters for offshore wind farms.
Under round three, the estate has earmarked 11 areas which have the potential to be viable offshore wind sites, due to the levels of wind, water depth and potential connection to the grid, and taking in shipping and environmental concerns.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) and energy regulator Ofgem also announced today they were opening the tendering process to companies to provide the £15bn of new cabling needed to connect new wind farms.
The energy and climate change minister, Lord Hunt, said: "Offshore wind is fundamental to delivering our target of 15% renewable energy by 2020, and looking ahead to reducing our carbon emissions by 80%."
He said wind power presented a "huge opportunity" for the UK industry.
"We're already the world's number one offshore wind power. With the right support, we can grow the industry even further, supporting tens of thousands of high-value, green manufacturing jobs."
A report on offshore wind construction by the British Wind Energy Association suggests that 9GW of wind power capacity will be built by 2015, with wind overtaking nuclear in terms of installed capacity in the next four to five years.
The BWEA said the government still needed to create a policy framework for wind, facilitate grid connections and ease supply chain pressures – some of the hurdles offshore wind farms face.
If annual deployment of wind capacity hit 4GW to 5GW a year Europe-wide, prices for installing wind farms could fall by 20%.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace chief scientist, said: "Offshore wind farms must be a key part of the UK's future energy supply.
"And they won't just generate electricity, they'll also generate thousands of British jobs and help tackle energy security.
"But, if Britain is to get all the benefits that offshore wind will provide, the government must do more to support the industry."
The Green party leader, Caroline Lucas, said wind power was one of the major tools for tackling climate change, and called for "urgent government commitment and serious government funding" to make sure the UK's wind industry could reach its full potential.
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 10.48 BST
The UK's seas could provide enough extra wind energy to power the equivalent of 19m homes, according to an assessment by the government.
The government's strategic environmental assessment (Sea) confirmed projections that an extra 25GW of electricity generation capacity could be accommodated in UK waters.
This would be in addition to the 8GW of wind power already built or planned offshore, bringing the potential total electricity capacity of offshore wind to 33GW – enough to power every household in the UK.
According to the government, offshore wind has the potential to meet more than a quarter of the UK's electricity needs, provide the UK with up to 70,000 new jobs and generate £8bn a year in revenue.
The findings of the Sea mean the crown estate can push ahead with round three of leasing UK waters for offshore wind farms.
Under round three, the estate has earmarked 11 areas which have the potential to be viable offshore wind sites, due to the levels of wind, water depth and potential connection to the grid, and taking in shipping and environmental concerns.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) and energy regulator Ofgem also announced today they were opening the tendering process to companies to provide the £15bn of new cabling needed to connect new wind farms.
The energy and climate change minister, Lord Hunt, said: "Offshore wind is fundamental to delivering our target of 15% renewable energy by 2020, and looking ahead to reducing our carbon emissions by 80%."
He said wind power presented a "huge opportunity" for the UK industry.
"We're already the world's number one offshore wind power. With the right support, we can grow the industry even further, supporting tens of thousands of high-value, green manufacturing jobs."
A report on offshore wind construction by the British Wind Energy Association suggests that 9GW of wind power capacity will be built by 2015, with wind overtaking nuclear in terms of installed capacity in the next four to five years.
The BWEA said the government still needed to create a policy framework for wind, facilitate grid connections and ease supply chain pressures – some of the hurdles offshore wind farms face.
If annual deployment of wind capacity hit 4GW to 5GW a year Europe-wide, prices for installing wind farms could fall by 20%.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace chief scientist, said: "Offshore wind farms must be a key part of the UK's future energy supply.
"And they won't just generate electricity, they'll also generate thousands of British jobs and help tackle energy security.
"But, if Britain is to get all the benefits that offshore wind will provide, the government must do more to support the industry."
The Green party leader, Caroline Lucas, said wind power was one of the major tools for tackling climate change, and called for "urgent government commitment and serious government funding" to make sure the UK's wind industry could reach its full potential.
Sears Tower to install wind turbines, solar panels and gardens
America's tallest building to undergo $350m green renovation
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 10.27 BST
Wind turbines, roof gardens and solar panels will join the pair of antennas atop the Sears Tower's staggered rooftops in Chicago, said building officials who announced on Wednesday that the skyscraper would undergo a $350m green renovation.
The five-year project would reduce the tower's electricity use by 80% and save 24 million gallons of water a year, building owners and architects said.
Separately, a 50-storey, 500-room privately funded luxury hotel with its own green components would be built next to the skyscraper within five years.
"Our plans are very ambitious," said John Huston of American Landmark Properties, who represents the building ownership. "Our plans to modernise and transform this icon will re-establish Sears Tower as a leader, a pioneer."
The environmental upgrades are the latest changes affecting Sears Tower.
In March, London-based Willis Group Holdings announced that the Sears Tower would be renamed Willis Tower later this summer after the company has moved 500 employees into the building. And construction is under way on the tower's Skydeck to add four enclosed glass-bottomed balconies.
The green project includes the installation of solar panels on the tower's 90th floor roof to heat water used in the building. Different types of wind turbines will be positioned on the tower's tiered roofs and tested for efficiency. And between 30,000 square feet (2,787 square meters) and 35,000 square feet (3,250 square meters) of roof gardens will be planted.
"This endeavour is incredibly important as a role model for others to follow," architect Adrian Smith said. "We see this as a groundbreaking opportunity."
Other changes to the 110-storey skyscraper, the tallest building in the United States, include improvements to the 16,000 window pieces along the outside of the tower to save heating energy; mechanical system upgrades; updates to the building's 104 elevators; an advanced lighting control system and restroom renovations aimed at saving water.
Officials dispelled rumors the building's black exterior would be painted silver to increase energy efficiency.
"We don't have any plans to change colors at this time," Huston said.
The project should create 3,600 jobs, officials said, and will include a learning centre on the ground floor showcasing green efforts to the public.
Sears Tower first opened in 1973, designed by the architecture firm Skidmore, Owings and Merril, the same firm that designed the city's John Hancock Tower.
Sears Roebuck and Co was the building's original tenant before the department store moved its headquarters to the Chicago suburb of Hoffman Estates in 1992. A real estate investment group formed in 2004 now owns the 1,451-foot (442-metre) skyscraper.
Officials say they'd like the tower to achieve "LEED" status, otherwise known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a standard monitored by the US Green Building Council.
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 June 2009 10.27 BST
Wind turbines, roof gardens and solar panels will join the pair of antennas atop the Sears Tower's staggered rooftops in Chicago, said building officials who announced on Wednesday that the skyscraper would undergo a $350m green renovation.
The five-year project would reduce the tower's electricity use by 80% and save 24 million gallons of water a year, building owners and architects said.
Separately, a 50-storey, 500-room privately funded luxury hotel with its own green components would be built next to the skyscraper within five years.
"Our plans are very ambitious," said John Huston of American Landmark Properties, who represents the building ownership. "Our plans to modernise and transform this icon will re-establish Sears Tower as a leader, a pioneer."
The environmental upgrades are the latest changes affecting Sears Tower.
In March, London-based Willis Group Holdings announced that the Sears Tower would be renamed Willis Tower later this summer after the company has moved 500 employees into the building. And construction is under way on the tower's Skydeck to add four enclosed glass-bottomed balconies.
The green project includes the installation of solar panels on the tower's 90th floor roof to heat water used in the building. Different types of wind turbines will be positioned on the tower's tiered roofs and tested for efficiency. And between 30,000 square feet (2,787 square meters) and 35,000 square feet (3,250 square meters) of roof gardens will be planted.
"This endeavour is incredibly important as a role model for others to follow," architect Adrian Smith said. "We see this as a groundbreaking opportunity."
Other changes to the 110-storey skyscraper, the tallest building in the United States, include improvements to the 16,000 window pieces along the outside of the tower to save heating energy; mechanical system upgrades; updates to the building's 104 elevators; an advanced lighting control system and restroom renovations aimed at saving water.
Officials dispelled rumors the building's black exterior would be painted silver to increase energy efficiency.
"We don't have any plans to change colors at this time," Huston said.
The project should create 3,600 jobs, officials said, and will include a learning centre on the ground floor showcasing green efforts to the public.
Sears Tower first opened in 1973, designed by the architecture firm Skidmore, Owings and Merril, the same firm that designed the city's John Hancock Tower.
Sears Roebuck and Co was the building's original tenant before the department store moved its headquarters to the Chicago suburb of Hoffman Estates in 1992. A real estate investment group formed in 2004 now owns the 1,451-foot (442-metre) skyscraper.
Officials say they'd like the tower to achieve "LEED" status, otherwise known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a standard monitored by the US Green Building Council.
As an Efficiency Rating, the Energy Star Has Faded
Homes Given the Eco-Designation Could Face Tougher Rules if the EPA Revises a Program It Says Is Too Lax
By JEFFREY BALL
For cars, there is the hybrid. For lights, there is the compact fluorescent bulb. For subdivisions, there is the "Energy Star" house -- another way technology is allowing Americans to consume less energy without having to change the way they live.
Launched in the 1990s, the sky-blue Energy Star logo is the U.S. government's seal of approval for more energy-efficient products, from kitchen appliances to entire homes. Last year, builders scored the Energy Star designation for one in five new homes nationwide, a stamp they touted heavily in their ads.
But people who think an Energy Star house represents the height of energy savings should think again.
See the percentage of new homes built in 2008 that qualified for the EPA's Energy Star designation.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the program, says the Energy Star standards are too weak and need updating based on current technology. The program ignores small improvements that could bring big efficiency gains for comparatively little cost, such as low-flow showerheads and better insulation around windows. And the EPA notes that it is easier for a 5,500-square-foot house to get the Energy Star seal than a 1,500-square-foot house -- even though the bigger house likely consumes much more energy.
The EPA is preparing to roll out tougher rules to ensure the logo represents robust environmental standards. But it has to walk a fine line, particularly during the recession. If it pushes too hard, builders are likely to bow out of the voluntary program due to the added expense. Their concerns come as the Obama administration is pushing for what amounts to a mandatory nationwide building-efficiency rule. That provision is in an energy bill that the House is expected to vote on today. Builders worry it will raise the sticker price of new houses.
The tougher Energy Star standard "is going to make it more complicated and expensive," says Steve Saunders, whose Texas company, TexEnergy Solutions, is paid by home builders to inspect and certify houses under Energy Star. Though he calls the stricter rules "well thought-out," he predicts they could prompt "a huge number" of builders to leave the program.
Talk of energy efficiency typically focuses on fuel economy on the road. But buildings burn more than automobiles. Together, residential and commercial buildings account for about 40% of U.S. energy use, compared with about 17% for cars and light trucks. A recent Department of Energy study concluded that a typical house's energy use could be cut by at least 30%. It found the monthly mortgage payment needed to cover the higher construction costs would be more than offset by lower monthly energy bills.
The cheapest and easiest way to make a difference is to do it right the first time, when a house is built. Though automobiles have been subjected to a federal fuel-economy standard for three decades, houses have avoided such a nationwide rule. That has left regulation of buildings' energy use in the hands of state and local governments. Standards can vary widely from place to place -- just as they should, home builders say.
The Energy Star standard is compared to a "model" building-efficiency guideline used by state and local governments. To earn the Energy Star label, a new house must score at least 15% better than what that "model" guideline stipulates. The rating takes into account such things as insulation, windows, heating-and-cooling ducts and appliances.
Energy Star has succeeded in popularizing efficient products. It has become the most consistent guide for consumers who want to know the energy efficiency they're getting for their money -- boosting demand and driving down costs. The modern residential thermal window, which curbs energy waste, used to be expensive but is now common in entry-level houses.
But the program's shortcomings show how difficult it can be to achieve widespread energy savings. Consider Texas, the nation's biggest single-family home market and the epicenter of the Energy Star program. Some 32,000 Energy Star houses were built last year in Texas -- five times as many as in the No. 2 Energy Star state, Arizona. Fully 41% of all new single-family homes built last year in Texas got the Energy Star label, according to the EPA.
Kaden Homes, a builder based in Fort Worth, builds houses that typically cost about $500,000 -- luxury level in the local market. Among them is a four-bedroom, multi-gabled model the company calls the Llano -- Spanish for a wide, open plain. Like all Kaden houses, the Llano gets the Energy Star rating.
The Llano, at 4,400 square feet, is 57% larger than the average four-bedroom house in the U.S., which is about 2,800 square feet, according to EPA data. Beyond big rooms, the Llano has vaulted ceilings -- meaning more space to be cooled, heated and lit.
A larger four-bedroom home will almost certainly consume more total energy than a smaller four-bedroom home. But it will likely rate as more efficient when energy consumption is measured per square foot -- as the Energy Star ratings do.
To win Energy Star status for the Llano, Kaden Homes hasn't had to shrink its rooms or lower its ceilings to consume less energy. It has chosen less-visible tweaks, such as installing shiny panels on the inside of attic ceilings -- so-called radiant barriers -- that reflect heat from the sun back toward the sky, helping cool a house in a hot Texas summer.
Even with such Energy Star features, a house the size of the Llano typically consumes more energy than the average four-bedroom American house, given that the residents of the bigger house plug in more electronic devices, says Sam Rashkin, the EPA's national director of the Energy Star new-home program.
Big houses would lose their advantage under the tougher rule the EPA is preparing. It includes what would amount to a gas-guzzler penalty for houses. In the case of those two four-bedroom homes, the one that is bigger than average would have to improve its efficiency by a greater percentage than the one that is smaller than average. The rule, which the EPA plans to finalize this year and implement in 2011, is intended "to reward appropriate smallness and penalize wasteful largeness," as the EPA puts it in a document explaining the change.
Gradually, some states and cities are adopting their own stricter building-efficiency codes. To stay ahead, the new Energy Star rule also would require such measures as low-flow showerheads to curb hot-water use, new framing tactics to accommodate more insulation, and tougher inspections to ensure that a house is put together in a way that seals the interior space tightly.
Big houses, which the new Energy Star program seeks to penalize, have their appeal. Cherie and Craig Hundley built a Llano house last year atop a hill in Burleson, Texas, near Forth Worth. Ms. Hundley says she wanted to build a smaller house to save energy. But her husband wanted a room to play his stringed instruments and another to store his collection of political memorabilia. The couple ended up expanding the Llano's floor plan to 4,800 square feet. "It's a great house," Ms. Hundley says.
Jeffrey Ball responds to reader comments at WSJ.com/PowerShift. Email him at powershift@wsj.com.
Launched in the 1990s, the sky-blue Energy Star logo is the U.S. government's seal of approval for more energy-efficient products, from kitchen appliances to entire homes. Last year, builders scored the Energy Star designation for one in five new homes nationwide, a stamp they touted heavily in their ads.
But people who think an Energy Star house represents the height of energy savings should think again.
See the percentage of new homes built in 2008 that qualified for the EPA's Energy Star designation.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the program, says the Energy Star standards are too weak and need updating based on current technology. The program ignores small improvements that could bring big efficiency gains for comparatively little cost, such as low-flow showerheads and better insulation around windows. And the EPA notes that it is easier for a 5,500-square-foot house to get the Energy Star seal than a 1,500-square-foot house -- even though the bigger house likely consumes much more energy.
The EPA is preparing to roll out tougher rules to ensure the logo represents robust environmental standards. But it has to walk a fine line, particularly during the recession. If it pushes too hard, builders are likely to bow out of the voluntary program due to the added expense. Their concerns come as the Obama administration is pushing for what amounts to a mandatory nationwide building-efficiency rule. That provision is in an energy bill that the House is expected to vote on today. Builders worry it will raise the sticker price of new houses.
The tougher Energy Star standard "is going to make it more complicated and expensive," says Steve Saunders, whose Texas company, TexEnergy Solutions, is paid by home builders to inspect and certify houses under Energy Star. Though he calls the stricter rules "well thought-out," he predicts they could prompt "a huge number" of builders to leave the program.
Talk of energy efficiency typically focuses on fuel economy on the road. But buildings burn more than automobiles. Together, residential and commercial buildings account for about 40% of U.S. energy use, compared with about 17% for cars and light trucks. A recent Department of Energy study concluded that a typical house's energy use could be cut by at least 30%. It found the monthly mortgage payment needed to cover the higher construction costs would be more than offset by lower monthly energy bills.
The cheapest and easiest way to make a difference is to do it right the first time, when a house is built. Though automobiles have been subjected to a federal fuel-economy standard for three decades, houses have avoided such a nationwide rule. That has left regulation of buildings' energy use in the hands of state and local governments. Standards can vary widely from place to place -- just as they should, home builders say.
The Energy Star standard is compared to a "model" building-efficiency guideline used by state and local governments. To earn the Energy Star label, a new house must score at least 15% better than what that "model" guideline stipulates. The rating takes into account such things as insulation, windows, heating-and-cooling ducts and appliances.
Energy Star has succeeded in popularizing efficient products. It has become the most consistent guide for consumers who want to know the energy efficiency they're getting for their money -- boosting demand and driving down costs. The modern residential thermal window, which curbs energy waste, used to be expensive but is now common in entry-level houses.
But the program's shortcomings show how difficult it can be to achieve widespread energy savings. Consider Texas, the nation's biggest single-family home market and the epicenter of the Energy Star program. Some 32,000 Energy Star houses were built last year in Texas -- five times as many as in the No. 2 Energy Star state, Arizona. Fully 41% of all new single-family homes built last year in Texas got the Energy Star label, according to the EPA.
Kaden Homes, a builder based in Fort Worth, builds houses that typically cost about $500,000 -- luxury level in the local market. Among them is a four-bedroom, multi-gabled model the company calls the Llano -- Spanish for a wide, open plain. Like all Kaden houses, the Llano gets the Energy Star rating.
The Llano, at 4,400 square feet, is 57% larger than the average four-bedroom house in the U.S., which is about 2,800 square feet, according to EPA data. Beyond big rooms, the Llano has vaulted ceilings -- meaning more space to be cooled, heated and lit.
A larger four-bedroom home will almost certainly consume more total energy than a smaller four-bedroom home. But it will likely rate as more efficient when energy consumption is measured per square foot -- as the Energy Star ratings do.
To win Energy Star status for the Llano, Kaden Homes hasn't had to shrink its rooms or lower its ceilings to consume less energy. It has chosen less-visible tweaks, such as installing shiny panels on the inside of attic ceilings -- so-called radiant barriers -- that reflect heat from the sun back toward the sky, helping cool a house in a hot Texas summer.
Even with such Energy Star features, a house the size of the Llano typically consumes more energy than the average four-bedroom American house, given that the residents of the bigger house plug in more electronic devices, says Sam Rashkin, the EPA's national director of the Energy Star new-home program.
Big houses would lose their advantage under the tougher rule the EPA is preparing. It includes what would amount to a gas-guzzler penalty for houses. In the case of those two four-bedroom homes, the one that is bigger than average would have to improve its efficiency by a greater percentage than the one that is smaller than average. The rule, which the EPA plans to finalize this year and implement in 2011, is intended "to reward appropriate smallness and penalize wasteful largeness," as the EPA puts it in a document explaining the change.
Gradually, some states and cities are adopting their own stricter building-efficiency codes. To stay ahead, the new Energy Star rule also would require such measures as low-flow showerheads to curb hot-water use, new framing tactics to accommodate more insulation, and tougher inspections to ensure that a house is put together in a way that seals the interior space tightly.
Big houses, which the new Energy Star program seeks to penalize, have their appeal. Cherie and Craig Hundley built a Llano house last year atop a hill in Burleson, Texas, near Forth Worth. Ms. Hundley says she wanted to build a smaller house to save energy. But her husband wanted a room to play his stringed instruments and another to store his collection of political memorabilia. The couple ended up expanding the Llano's floor plan to 4,800 square feet. "It's a great house," Ms. Hundley says.
Jeffrey Ball responds to reader comments at WSJ.com/PowerShift. Email him at powershift@wsj.com.
China Seeks Report on Dam's Ecological Effects
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIJING -- China's environment ministry said it has ordered an ecological assessment for a proposed Yangtze River dam that conservationists fear could threaten hundreds of fish species and drive the giant Chinese sturgeon into extinction.
Chinese environmentalists and scientists are trying to halt the Xiaonanhai dam, upstream from Chongqing city in mountainous western China, saying that it and two other dams would flood most of the last remaining fish reserve on the Yangtze, preventing the migration of rare fish.
Agence France-Presse
A fisherman returns home to a migrant village up-river from the Three Gorges dam project near Chongqing, China, last year. At least 1.4 million people have been forced to resettle from now-submerged areas.
They argue that could lead to the extinction of species such as the Chinese sturgeon, one of the world's longest freshwater fish.
The Ministry of Environmental Protection's chief engineer, Wan Bentai, announced the environmental assessment order at a news conference Thursday, saying the ministry has the power to reject the project if it is shown to be harmful to the environment.
"The Chinese government is fond of developing hydropower, but we must take into account the environmental effects of those projects," Mr. Wan said.
He said the assessment will be commissioned by the Chongqing government, but it was unclear when it would be finished.
China has pumped money into hydropower as part of plans to wean its economy off its dependency on coal. There are more than 25,800 large dams in China -- more than any other country, according to International Rivers, a nonprofit group based in California. Critics say the dams will obstruct the free flow of the river and threaten aquatic life.
Some 338 species of fish live in the Yangtze River basin, 162 of them unique to the river, a group of scientists and environmentalists wrote last month in the China Economic Times.
Copyright © 2009 Associated Press
BEIJING -- China's environment ministry said it has ordered an ecological assessment for a proposed Yangtze River dam that conservationists fear could threaten hundreds of fish species and drive the giant Chinese sturgeon into extinction.
Chinese environmentalists and scientists are trying to halt the Xiaonanhai dam, upstream from Chongqing city in mountainous western China, saying that it and two other dams would flood most of the last remaining fish reserve on the Yangtze, preventing the migration of rare fish.
Agence France-Presse
A fisherman returns home to a migrant village up-river from the Three Gorges dam project near Chongqing, China, last year. At least 1.4 million people have been forced to resettle from now-submerged areas.
They argue that could lead to the extinction of species such as the Chinese sturgeon, one of the world's longest freshwater fish.
The Ministry of Environmental Protection's chief engineer, Wan Bentai, announced the environmental assessment order at a news conference Thursday, saying the ministry has the power to reject the project if it is shown to be harmful to the environment.
"The Chinese government is fond of developing hydropower, but we must take into account the environmental effects of those projects," Mr. Wan said.
He said the assessment will be commissioned by the Chongqing government, but it was unclear when it would be finished.
China has pumped money into hydropower as part of plans to wean its economy off its dependency on coal. There are more than 25,800 large dams in China -- more than any other country, according to International Rivers, a nonprofit group based in California. Critics say the dams will obstruct the free flow of the river and threaten aquatic life.
Some 338 species of fish live in the Yangtze River basin, 162 of them unique to the river, a group of scientists and environmentalists wrote last month in the China Economic Times.
Copyright © 2009 Associated Press
Cambridge research could lead to real-time pollution maps
Map of carbon monoxide in Cambridge. Source: Cambridge Mobile Urban Sensing Project
A chance encounter in the coffee lounge of the Cambridge chemistry department could lead to real-time maps of pollution in the city, as an offshoot of an EU project that is nearing completion in the city.
A team in Cambridge which has been running the Cambridge Mobile Urban Sensing project (CamMobSens) will begin equipping volunteers on bicycles and on foot with mobile phones and pollution sensors linked by Bluetooth.
The sensors will monitor the levels of carbon monoxide and NOx (nitrogen oxides) in the city air and relay them to satellites, which will pass them directly to openly accessible databases being run by the project.
The government does provide an overview of air quality at its own site, airquality.co.uk, but the data is not real-time, and is not mapped in detail, although it is possible to get a Google Earth download which will show the air quality as measured by roadside monitors.
But Professor Peter Murray-Rust, who happened to meet Mark Calleja, the head of the CamMobSens project during a coffee break, has now suggested that the results could be mapped in real time onto the free open-source maps provided by the OpenStreetMap project, a British-inspired project which uses volunteers using GPS locators to create maps of cities and, in time, countries.
Murray-Rust is now appealing to the OpenStreetMap team to get in touch with Calleja, so that by the time the project begins later this summer it will be possible to add the pollution information immediately to maps from OpenStreetMap.
The advantage of using OpenStreetMap rather than online maps from the UK's official mapping agency, the Ordnance Survey, is that there are no copyright implications in the addition of data to the maps - and no limits or charges on viewing of the maps. Ordnance Survey has recently eased its restrictions on non-commercial organisations using custom online maps through a specialised web interface, but issues remain over its licensing of unrestricted access to those maps.
If it succeeds, it won't be the first time that Cambridge's university coffee has had a dramatic effect. In 1991 a group at the Cambridge Computer laboratory aimed a webcam at a coffee pot downstairs from their laboratory so that they wouldn't have to walk downstairs to find out if it was empty or full. The webcam was later put onto the world wide web - and engineers at Microsoft showed it to Bill Gates in 1994 to persuade him that the web would be important by making it feasible for people anywhere to stay in touch - even with their coffee pots.
A chance encounter in the coffee lounge of the Cambridge chemistry department could lead to real-time maps of pollution in the city, as an offshoot of an EU project that is nearing completion in the city.
A team in Cambridge which has been running the Cambridge Mobile Urban Sensing project (CamMobSens) will begin equipping volunteers on bicycles and on foot with mobile phones and pollution sensors linked by Bluetooth.
The sensors will monitor the levels of carbon monoxide and NOx (nitrogen oxides) in the city air and relay them to satellites, which will pass them directly to openly accessible databases being run by the project.
The government does provide an overview of air quality at its own site, airquality.co.uk, but the data is not real-time, and is not mapped in detail, although it is possible to get a Google Earth download which will show the air quality as measured by roadside monitors.
But Professor Peter Murray-Rust, who happened to meet Mark Calleja, the head of the CamMobSens project during a coffee break, has now suggested that the results could be mapped in real time onto the free open-source maps provided by the OpenStreetMap project, a British-inspired project which uses volunteers using GPS locators to create maps of cities and, in time, countries.
Murray-Rust is now appealing to the OpenStreetMap team to get in touch with Calleja, so that by the time the project begins later this summer it will be possible to add the pollution information immediately to maps from OpenStreetMap.
The advantage of using OpenStreetMap rather than online maps from the UK's official mapping agency, the Ordnance Survey, is that there are no copyright implications in the addition of data to the maps - and no limits or charges on viewing of the maps. Ordnance Survey has recently eased its restrictions on non-commercial organisations using custom online maps through a specialised web interface, but issues remain over its licensing of unrestricted access to those maps.
If it succeeds, it won't be the first time that Cambridge's university coffee has had a dramatic effect. In 1991 a group at the Cambridge Computer laboratory aimed a webcam at a coffee pot downstairs from their laboratory so that they wouldn't have to walk downstairs to find out if it was empty or full. The webcam was later put onto the world wide web - and engineers at Microsoft showed it to Bill Gates in 1994 to persuade him that the web would be important by making it feasible for people anywhere to stay in touch - even with their coffee pots.
Solved: riddle of Siberia's flattened forest
A century on, scientists say massive explosion was caused by comet collision
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 26 June 2009
A massive explosion that flattened an entire forest in northern Russia over an area of 800 square miles more than a century ago was almost certainly caused by the Earth colliding with a comet, according to a study by rocket scientists in the United States.
The explosion in 1908 occurred in the sky at a remote location in Siberia near the Tunguska river. It is estimated to have been equivalent to a 20-megaton nuclear bomb, which would have decimated everything within the M25 had it occurred over London rather than a largely uninhabited region.
Tunguska has long been the subject of intense speculation, with suggested causes ranging from the release of a gigantic cloud of explosive methane gas from underground, to a collision with anti-matter particles from deep space, or even the crash of a visiting extra-terrestrial spacecraft.
One of the most likely explanations, however, had been that the Earth was hit by a piece of space rock – but a number of scientific expeditions to the area failed to find the impact crater, suggesting that if such a meteoroid had struck the Earth in 1908 it must have exploded high enough in the atmosphere to have disintegrated before reaching the ground.
Now a team of researchers studying the plumes of water vapour created by the rocket engines of the Space Shuttle believe they have found the crucial evidence in favour of another theory: a collision with the icy heart of a comet.
This would have released huge volumes of water vapour at very high altitude, creating highly reflective clouds that may explain why the sky was lit up for days after the collision, with people as far away as London saying that they could read newspapers outdoors at midnight, the scientists said.
"It's almost like putting together a 100-year-old murder mystery," said Michael Kelley professor of engineering at Cornell University in New York. "The evidence is pretty strong that the Earth was hit by a comet in 1908."
The dramatic illumination of the night sky in the day after the event on 30 June 1908 was probably caused by the formation of "noctilucent" clouds – named because they are visible at night – which are made up of ice particles formed at very high altitude and low temperatures, Professor Kelley said.
A study of exhaust plumes from the Space Shuttle have shown how noctilucent clouds can form a day after a shuttle launch and many miles from its flight path due to high-speed winds generated at this altitude, the scientists found. The exhaust plume is a model of how a comet would have created similar noctilucent clouds, they said.
The appearance of skies bright enough to read newspapers at night as far away as London – some 3,000 miles away from Tunguska – could be explained by the transport of huge volumes of water vapour arising from the comet by the high winds of the upper atmosphere where these clouds form, Professor Kelley said.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 26 June 2009
A massive explosion that flattened an entire forest in northern Russia over an area of 800 square miles more than a century ago was almost certainly caused by the Earth colliding with a comet, according to a study by rocket scientists in the United States.
The explosion in 1908 occurred in the sky at a remote location in Siberia near the Tunguska river. It is estimated to have been equivalent to a 20-megaton nuclear bomb, which would have decimated everything within the M25 had it occurred over London rather than a largely uninhabited region.
Tunguska has long been the subject of intense speculation, with suggested causes ranging from the release of a gigantic cloud of explosive methane gas from underground, to a collision with anti-matter particles from deep space, or even the crash of a visiting extra-terrestrial spacecraft.
One of the most likely explanations, however, had been that the Earth was hit by a piece of space rock – but a number of scientific expeditions to the area failed to find the impact crater, suggesting that if such a meteoroid had struck the Earth in 1908 it must have exploded high enough in the atmosphere to have disintegrated before reaching the ground.
Now a team of researchers studying the plumes of water vapour created by the rocket engines of the Space Shuttle believe they have found the crucial evidence in favour of another theory: a collision with the icy heart of a comet.
This would have released huge volumes of water vapour at very high altitude, creating highly reflective clouds that may explain why the sky was lit up for days after the collision, with people as far away as London saying that they could read newspapers outdoors at midnight, the scientists said.
"It's almost like putting together a 100-year-old murder mystery," said Michael Kelley professor of engineering at Cornell University in New York. "The evidence is pretty strong that the Earth was hit by a comet in 1908."
The dramatic illumination of the night sky in the day after the event on 30 June 1908 was probably caused by the formation of "noctilucent" clouds – named because they are visible at night – which are made up of ice particles formed at very high altitude and low temperatures, Professor Kelley said.
A study of exhaust plumes from the Space Shuttle have shown how noctilucent clouds can form a day after a shuttle launch and many miles from its flight path due to high-speed winds generated at this altitude, the scientists found. The exhaust plume is a model of how a comet would have created similar noctilucent clouds, they said.
The appearance of skies bright enough to read newspapers at night as far away as London – some 3,000 miles away from Tunguska – could be explained by the transport of huge volumes of water vapour arising from the comet by the high winds of the upper atmosphere where these clouds form, Professor Kelley said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
