U.S. Energy Policy: CA governor to assess President's first-year accomplishments

The Los Angeles Times' Greenspace environmental blog reported today on an interesting web cast taking place on Tuesday, January 19th at 7:00pm Pacific Standard Time. California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will assess President Obama's first year accomplishments in energy policy as part of an Energy Task Force conference panel.

Why listen in? Well, for one thing, it would be interesting to hear a conservative with a less-than-conservative approach when it comes to the environment, discuss the energy track record of a so-called liberal who has been criticized by many environmental groups for not following through on campaign promises - quite an odd blend of positions and attitudes. And for another, it's important to know what direction our decision-makers seem to be heading, regardless of how maddening listening to political verbosity can be.

Here's Margot Roosevelt's post from the Los Angeles Times:

On Tuesday night, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will join a panel, along with former Secretary of State George Shultz, to talk about President Obama's first-year record on energy policy. The moderated question-and-answer session is part of an Energy Task Force conference at Stanford's Hoover Institution, a conservative think-tank.

It will be webcast live at 7 p.m. Pacific at www.gov.ca.gov.

Schwarzenegger frequently boasts that California leads the nation in environmental and energy policy. The state enacted a law to curb global warming emissions in 2006, and it is on the verge of adopting regulations to implement a roughly 15% cut in greenhouse gases below today's level. Meanwhile, Obama has also pressed ahead on climate issues, pushing for congressional legislation. He has backed the Environmental Protection Agency's recent declaration that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, and can thus be controlled under the existing Clean Air Act if Congress fails to adopt a climate-specific law.

The Schwarzenegger and Obama administrations cooperated on mileage standards for new cars, after the Golden State passed the country's first rules to control greenhouse gases from vehicles. Last week, California adopted a first-in-the-nation mandatory green building code.

Geoengineering: changing the earth's climate for better or worse?

Geoengineering - this is a concept that we will be hearing more and more about with regards to managing climate change. It doesn't necessarily involve us on a personal level, like buying fluorescent light bulbs or driving more fuel-efficient cars; this is large-scale proactive approaches where science and commerce are utilized to directly counter the effects of climate change and CO2 emissions rather than deal with root causes.

Basically, we are talking about taking the CO2 we have in the atmosphere and finding some other place to park it, often referred to as CO2 sequestration. There have been proposals to store it underground while others have focused on methods of increasing absorption by the oceans where it is stored at deep depths.

I was reading several reports on ocean sequestration and there are many techniques that have been studied and even experimented with on a small scale. The results and/or recommendations have been conflicting - in part due to the fact that none of this has been undertaken on a large, truly global scale so we are walking into unknown territory with only projections and theories to guide us. Here are some of the current concepts regarding ocean CO2 sequestration:

Ocean Fertilization: Using the addition of iron particles to induce greater phytoplankton blooms which will, as part of their normal biological process, consume more CO2 and then sink to the ocean bottom. Some scientists say this is a viable approach, others say that the results are not substantial enough compared to the costs and related effects that would impact the ocean ecosystem.

Ocean Nourishment: A variation on ocean fertilization wherein additional nutrients are added to the process that could enhance the growth of feeder fish populations, thereby providing additional benefits with an increased food source and potential commercial value to developing countries.

Alkalinity Change: A land-based process where a CO2 source is combined with limestone and sea water. Basically the reaction alters the pH level and binds the CO2 to the sea water, which is then discharged back into the ocean. The use of limestone, which introduces calcium carbonate, is expected to neutralize acidification and therefore have minimal impact on the marine ecology.

Direct Injection: When ocean sequestration is discussed, the storage of CO2 is to take place at great depths where CO2 actually forms a liquid more dense than seawater (below 3000 meters). There are proposals for direct injection that involve piping CO2 directly from sources like industrial plants or energy refineries into the ocean depths where it is trapped at depth, forming a kind of deep sea lake of near-solid CO2.

These are techniques that are currently being experimented with, but whether they ultimately prove to be physically or financially practical on a large scale remains to be seen. And what of the unforeseen ecological implications? Attitudes range and proposals are hotly debated within the scientific community. There are those that say that geoengineering represents "doing something rather than nothing" with the current and future volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of what preventive steps are taken. (Remember the Carbon Bathtub analogy I cited earlier this week? Even if we radically cut back on CO2 emissions, we will have excess amounts in the atmosphere to deal with for centuries.)

Geoengineering is not a silver bullet solution nor does it free us from addressing the ongoing sources of CO2 emissions. At best it could work in concert with CO2 reduction strategies, but it is technology that is new with unforeseen consequences and perhaps must operate on unimaginable scales worldwide. However, it may find its place because we don't have a choice.

The Next Frontier: from the moon to saving planet earth

For me, it's hard to imagine it was 40 years ago today that man first set foot on the moon - one of mankind's greatest technological achievements. Anyone under 40 years of age wasn't even born yet when astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface, and what have we done since? What has been the next great milestone?

There are many who say that it was a big waste of time and money; a common complaint among terrestrial- and ocean-based scientists who feel they got shortchanged with so many resources being diverted into the heavens. And in many ways they would be right, no argument here.

But going to the moon had the advantage of being a singular goal or achievement that could capture the attention of the general public. As a kid I watched Sea Hunt and the Aquanauts and I also had just about every space model kit ever made. All these avenues of exploration fired our sense of wonder and imagination, but going to the moon had the advantage of a greater sense of focus.

Of course, what propelled it was a political issue - beating the Russians, proving democracy's superiority over communism, and establishing the United States' preeminence in space as a political and military warning to all others. That's what brought in the bucks for Buck Rogers. And there were spin-offs to justify the cost with tremendous advances in aerospace and technology industries that produced everything from better cookware to velcro to freeze-dried ice cream (okay, so they weren't all successes).

But there once was an explorer's ultimate dream, and politics moved it forward, and science expanded its knowledge because of it, and business and the public benefited in many obvious and subtle ways. And then it was over.

So, today commemorates both, one of man's greatest achievements and the start of a downward slide, lost in the wilderness. What can get us back on a new track? What can wrench us away from our self-absorbed, self-centered interests - some of which have been aided by the very technology that the space race generated - and get us on a path towards the next technological milestone? What one thing could test the boundaries of science and technology, motivates us all to move forward as every great culture in the past has, and provide worldwide benefits for generations to come?

Simple: no more fossil fuels.

In essence, we reached the moon on the shoulders of an industrialized society based on a centuries-long dependence on fossil fuels. And the planet and every living thing on it is now paying a very dear price for it. So, what could be a better goal for all of us to set our sights on? Not a "someday" or a "we hope to" but a "let's get it done!" Who will show the leadership to make the declaration and pick a date? Who will have the courage to recognize the cost but be able to show the short-term and long-term benefits? Benefits to industrialized nations, third world nations, the rich and the poor. Alternative energy, cleaner air, less CO2, reduced ocean acidification, less greenhouse effect. Why not?

When President Kennedy made his declaration that we would reach the moon within one decade, there were plenty who grumbled as to why not. They were wrong. Mankind can save its pioneering spirit from extinction and in the process do the same for the planet.

At least on this 40th commemoration, that's what occurred to me.