US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu appeared to pull some punches while speaking at the US Center in Cancun on Monday. (Photo: Gretchen Weber)

The UN climate negotiations in Cancun may be the official attraction, but in many ways, there’s just as much happening at the “side events” here at COP16.  There are dozens everyday — last week there were more than 150, and that number is increasing this week as more people arrive for the final days of the talks.  While the negotiations are limited to representatives from national governments, the side events provide a stage for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), scientists, business leaders, and local and regional government officials, many of them, it turns out, from California.

On Monday, US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, (former head of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab) took the stage to talk about emissions reductions in the US at the national level, and raising eyebrows in the room by taking no questions.

Earlier Lauren Faber of the Cal-EPA spoke on a panel about what California is doing to reduce emissions, highlighting the defeat of Prop 23 (which got a round of applause from the international audience of about 150), California’s efforts to implement a cap-and-trade system, and the state’s vehicle emissions standards, which served as a model for the new federal rules.

Neither talk broke any new ground. In fact, I’d already heard much of Chu’s talk at Stanford earlier this year. He predicted increases in the cost of oil and warned that the damage now being inflicted on the planet won’t be felt for 100 years.  Here in Cancun, however, he left out much of the “call to action” that characterized that Stanford speech, opting instead to catalog many of the clean energy tax incentive and R&D programs that the federal stimulus package has funded in the US, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Over the weekend, I attended the first-annual Gigaton Awards, which was hosted by Sir Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room and by the Gigaton Throwdown, a group founded by San Francisco-based clean tech investor Sunil Paul that “encourages entrepreneurs, investors and policy makers to grow companies that stabilize the climate.”  Awards were given in five categories to companies that had made significant cuts in their own emissions, and, depending on the category, on the influence their products have had on outside emissions.

None of the winners were from California, but the Golden State was well represented at the awards dinner.  Attendees included executives from HP, Google, and Hara, a San Mateo-based company that develops software for energy-and-carbon-accounting.

While the side events allow regional governments and businesses to share ideas and celebrate what they consider their achievements, they’re also a venue for organizations and scientists to raise awareness about issues they think are not getting enough attention.

Tony Haymet, director of the Scripps Institute for Oceanography was doing just that on Friday, across the lawn from the UN negotiations at a briefing about ocean acidification.

“Sometimes I feel the science that’s talked about here is from 1965,” he said, adding that the word “ocean” is  barely mentioned in the UN climate change negotiating documents.

“This is sort of the tyranny of the atmosphere here at the climate talks,” he said.

Haymet says that because CO2 in the atmosphere “inevitably” dissolves into the ocean, the amount of carbon in the ocean has increased by 30% over the last 150 years.  This change in ocean chemistry is harmful for organisms that rely on their calcium carbonate shells.

“If we persist in putting CO2 in the atmosphere and then in the ocean, eventually those organisms won’t be able to make their shells at all,” he said, which would destroy coral reefs, disrupt ocean food chains, and have negative consequences for the world’s commercial fisheries.

“We’re trying to raise a red flag that CO2 has another bad effect,” said Haymet.  “The conclusion of all this is very simple.  We just have to make electricity without making CO2.”

“AB 32 was a good bill and continues to have California in a leadership role in developing clean energy and the efficient use of energy,” Chu told reporters at a dedication in Menlo Park. “From the middle 1970s California played that role and it would just be a terrible setback.”

Last week the trend was given full voice by Mary Nichols, who, as chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is charged with getting AB 32 fully implemented in the next two years, called Prop 23 a “very serious threat,” not just to the core programs of AB 32, but to an array of regulatory programs that support the state’s attack on greenhouse gases.

“It would bring the part of it that I have anything to do with to a halt, certainly,” Nichols told me in an interview. “Although everybody’s ability to do things that reference climate–that reference GHG emissions–would be threatened as a result of this.”

“Absolutely not,” counters Michael Shaw, who directs legislative activities for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in California. “The measure only deals with AB 32 and does not deal with any of the other (environmental) laws; the Clean Air Act, the CEQA, or the California Water Quality Act. So all those laws will continue to remain in place and provide the protections to the environment that they’ve always done.”

Those specific laws, perhaps (the Clean Air Act, to be sure, as it’s a federal law). But what about the matrix of state regulation that was assembled outside of AB 32 to support greenhouse gas reductions, or measures put in place by executive order, such as the state’s edict to reach 33% renewable energy by 2020?

Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the campaign against Prop 23, says the language of the ballot measure is wide open for interpretation.

“If the proponents wanted to limit the ballot measure just to regulations adopted ‘pursuant to’ AB 32, it would have been easy to say so, ” Maviglio wrote in a recent email. “But they did not do that, instead they chose to apply the ballot measure to all regulations that ‘implement’ AB 32.”

The “scoping plan” for AB 32–essentially the implementation strategy–draws on numerous other laws and regulations to achieve its emissions goals. Maviglio says the ballot measure “would effectively rip out the central nervous system of the state’s efforts on greenhouse gas reduction/clean energy/etc…which is the mandatory reporting and related programmatic components that are absolutely necessary to have any sort of comprehensive program.”

Last month, in an analysis of all measures set to appear on November’s statewide ballot, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst gave this assessment of the scope of Prop 23:

“This proposition would result in the suspension of a number of measures in the Scoping Plan for which regulations either have been adopted or are proposed for adoption. Specifically, this proposition would likely suspend:
- The proposed cap-and-trade regulation…
- The “low carbon fuel standard” regulation that requires providers of transportation fuel in California (such as refiners and importers) to change the mix of fuels to lower GHG emissions.
- The proposed ARB regulation that is intended to require privately and publicly owned utilities and others who sell electricity to obtain at least 33 percent of their supply from “renewable” sources, such as solar or wind power, by 2020. (The current requirement that 20 percent of the electricity obtained by privately owned utilities come from renewable sources by 2010 would not be suspended by this proposition.)
- The fee to recover state agency costs of administering AB 32.”

But the LAO report went on to say that:

“Many current activities related to addressing climate change and reducing GHG emissions would probably not be suspended by this proposition. That is because certain Scoping Plan regulations implement laws other than AB 32. The regulations that would likely move forward, for example, include:

- New vehicle emission standards for cars and smaller trucks.
- A program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs.
- Land-use policies to promote less reliance on vehicle use.
- Building and appliance energy efficiency requirements.”

Shaw insists that “Proposition 23 simply deals with one issue at hand and that is the inappropriate timing of imposing new energy and other related taxes on Californians at a time when our economy can’t bear that.”

The full text of Prop 23 is available as a PDF download from the website of the California Secretary of State.

Asked by KQED News reporter Gabriela Quiros what Chu thought of the measure to sideline AB 32, slated for November’s ballot, Chu said:

“That would be a setback. AB32 was a good bill and continues to have California in a leadership role in developing clean energy and the efficient use of energy. From the middle 1970s, California played that role and it would just be a terrible setback.”

Chu made the comment while meeting with reporters after today’s dedication of Stanford’s $420 million Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) in Menlo Park. Billed as the world’s most powerful x-ray laser, scientists say it could one day create, among other things, energy sources that emulate photosynthesis.

Chu, who directed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory before being tapped by the Obama administration, has been a vocal proponent of climate action and development of renewable energy.

The energy secretary is only the latest in a parade of high-profile government and technology leaders to openly oppose Prop 23. Last week, Mary Nichols, who directs implementation of AB 32 as chair of the California Air Resources Board, called Prop 23 “a very serious threat” to the state. Both major gubernatorial candidates appear to oppose it. Democrat Jerry Brown has deplored it and Republican Meg Whitman has said she will “in all likelihood” vote against it. The measure is supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, and various companies in the oil and gas industry.

Photo: Gretchen Weber

Energy Secretary Steven Chu returned to his old stomping grounds at Stanford University yesterday with a broad outline for jump-starting “a clean energy industrial revolution.”  Speaking to a packed auditorium of students and faculty, Chu advocated the passage of a comprehensive energy bill, saying that increased innovation and investment in “clean tech” is essential for American competitiveness, as well as for reducing dependence on foreign oil and mitigating climate change:

“We are right now in a state of paralysis. There are many businesses who say ‘No, no, we can’t do this, this country was founded on cheap energy, that’s what I want.’  That’s just holding off the inevitable.  So if we hold off the inevitable for another 5 or 10 years, I think we will lose.  Because the other countries are moving.  And then we play catch up.  And then we import their stuff.  That’s what’s at risk.  The future of the prosperity of the US is at risk.  Energy touches everything.”

Chu said the United States is “not doing so well” in terms of clean energy innovation and cited the drop in US market share in photovoltaics  from 44% in 1996 to less than 10% today.

“The US innovation machine is the best in the world,” he said, and then recited a dismal laundry list of fields in which the US is no longer leading the way, including auto fuel efficiency, hybrid car batteries, energy transmission, energy transmission equipment, and nuclear technology.

When asked by an audience member why the US doesn’t commit to a Manhattan Project-style endeavor to solve the energy issue, Chu explained that a project at that scale would have an annual cost in the tens of billions.  In comparison, the current base budget of the DOE is $3 billion per year.

“I agree.  We should do that,” he said. “Tell people in Congress how important it is.”

Key to America’s success, he said is an energy bill that sends signals to the private sector that clean energy is a profitable venture, through incentives and tax breaks.  He said that the federal government plays a role in grants and loan guarantees, but to scale technologies from the idea stage to the factory floor, private investors must play a role.

“America has an opportunity to seize the day and to lead in what has to be a new industrial revolution,” said Chu.  “It’s our choice. Do we want to be leaders or followers?”

As if on cue, it looks like Los Angeles is about to crush one plan that might have helped put southern California at the forefront of clean energy generation and transmission. The Riverside Press-Enterprise reports today that Los Angeles officials will likely announce tomorrow that they’re pulling the plug on the contentious project known as Green Path North.   The project would have installed 80 miles of high-voltage lines and towers to carry geothermal, wind and solar energy from Imperial County to Los Angeles and some Inland cities.  The plans have met with opposition from environmental groups and communities along the proposed corridors.

The project was featured last year in a radio series for Climate Watch by KQED’s Rob Schmitz, on plans to get clean energy from southern California’s deserts to its cities.

The idea seems simple enough: In order to get energy, we burn carbon. In most cases, that carbon comes out of the ground in the form of natural gas or coal. So instead of releasing the resulting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, why not put it back into the ground?

Of course, carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS) is much more complicated than that. Nonetheless it’s a strategy that’s being pursued aggressively by both international leaders and US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who would like to see it deployed in ten years.

There are obstacles on both the “capture” and “storage” side of the equation. In terms of technology, however, “storage” is much further along, thanks to the oil and gas industry, which is already using CO2 in oil recovery. Injecting compressed CO2 into oil fields forces more oil to the surface in a process known as enhanced oil recovery. As many in the industry will remind you, they have three decades of experience doing this.

Keeping it underground is another matter. In the western US, the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WestCarb) is setting up a number of pilot projects to study how CO2 can be safely stored underground. As Technical Director Larry Myer explained to me, one of the primary goals is to simply work out the regulatory, siting, and liability issues.

As with any waste issue, choosing the site is the most important–and often most difficult–issue. California’s Central Valley has plenty of underground saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields that could hold CO2. But the trick is finding a site where the geology can securely store it and where there’s little risk of groundwater contamination. On the plus side, scientists know that CO2 is slowly immobilized underground, which lessens the risk over time. But how long that takes is still under study.

As for the “capture” issue, there are three ways to separate CO2 from power plant emissions.

• In today’s Climate Watch story, I describe Oxyfuel technology, in which natural gas is burned in pure oxygen. Since the outputs are steam and carbon dioxide, the CO2 can be easily siphoned off. But that requires building new power plants from scratch.
• The second option seeks to deal with the carbon dioxide before the fuel is burned; a “pre-combustion” approach. Or for all you wonks out there: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC). The downside to this process is that it requires gobs of energy, which makes it expensive.
• Finally, there’s the “post-combustion” approach. That’s where the CO2 is “scrubbed” from flue gas after the fuel is burned. Existing plants can be retrofitted with this technology, but it also comes with large energy penalty, just like IGCC.

A price on carbon, through either a cap-and-trade system or carbon tax, would change the economic case for CCS, but there are a lot of strikes against the technology. So why pursue it?

The argument goes like this: In order to achieve steep emissions cuts–say an 80% reduction worldwide by 2050–it may be an important tool (or stabilization wedge).  The world will continue to use fossil fuels in the near term and despite the enormous growth of renewable energy, it’s still a drop in the bucket. That’s why many believe that CCS is a crutch the world needs to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” Chu told the Los Angeles Times.  “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.”

Californians may appreciate this kind of attention in Washington to what is shaping up as potentially the worst drought in the state’s history.  The California Department of Water Resources reports $308.9 million in agricultural losses last year due to drought in the state, and if January was any indication of what’s to come, that number will be even higher for 2009.  The Santa Rosa Press Democrat reports that grape growers in the counties of Sonoma and Mendocino are facing a difficult choice this month as they decide whether to use some of their reduced water allotments for frost protection. With such a rapidly dwindling supply, water used now could mean none for irrigation later in the season.

This morning on KQED’s Forum, California water experts discussed the direness of the situation and the probability of water rationing and other measures to deal with it.

The California Department of Water Resources website has extensive information about drought conditions and mitigation efforts across the state, including this fact sheet updated for January 2009.

Photo by Reed Galin

Since 2004, the Nobel laureate physicist has been the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Lab spokesman Lynn Yarris said he could not confirm the report. In an email to KQED’s Cy Musiker, he wrote that Chu is traveling until next week, adding that right now the report is “all still speculation.”

Chu has maintained a fairly high profile, writing op-ed pieces on America’s energy future and lecturing on potential solutions to climate change (note that this link is to an hour-long video).

He’s also been a vocal supporter of California’s comprehensive plan to attack climate change, known by the shorthand AB-32. From an opinion piece for the San Francisco Chronicle last year, co-written with U.C. Berkeley’s chancellor, Robert Birgeneau:

“The development of new, carbon-neutral energy sources are needed to avert the predictions of disastrous climate change. The landmark global warming legislation signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year committing our state to ambitious reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 is a strong and encouraging step. California is a national and global leader moving toward a sustainable energy future, and it is in the public mission of the University of California to help find ways to meet these goals.”

LBNL has been a leader in developing energy-saving technology, from lighting to windows, to “cool-roof” coatings.

In 2006 Chu was interviewed on KQED’s Pacific Time.

The California Air Resources Board is expected to vote on final acceptance of an implementation plan for AB-32 tomorrow. Speaking of which, published reports indicate that Mary Nichols, who heads California’s air board, will be passed over for the top spot at the Environmental Protection Agency, and that the nod will go to Lisa Jackson, a former state environmental regulator in New Jersey.

Photo: LBNL.