Predictions voters would get some answers on energy in the first presidential debate seemed as though they just might come true Wednesday night in Colorado. Just minutes into the broadcast, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama touched on their policies for energy. Even so, the topic of energy was mostly overshadowed by tax policy and health care. As The Houston Chronicle’s Loren Steffy writes “what was said, mostly about fossil fuels, really didn’t raise any new points.”
Previously, on the campaign trail, both candidates proposed higher production of energy as a way to address the nation’s 8.1 percent unemployment rate. The National Journal states economists have said for months that energy production—whether through increased oil and gas drilling or boosting renewable energy or both—won’t create enough jobs to put most of the nation’s 23 million unemployed back to work (subscription).The Washington Post took a closer look at these and other numbers thrown out by candidates during the debate—summing up their origin and any discrepancies.
The largely under-the-radar issue of climate change never even entered the debate. Climate Desk calls climate change “the sleeper issue of 2012,” noting polls indicate both candidates could be using the issue to their advantage. Several new polls indicate voters are backing climate and clean energy policies. Regardless of whether or not the candidates are talking about the issue, the United Nation’s top climate change official Christiana Figueres said whoever wins in November will be forced to confront global warming.
‘Liquid Air’ could be Renewable Energy Storage Solution
Liquid air could work better than batteries or hydrogen for storing excess energy produced from wind turbines or other renewable energy sources during off-peak times, according to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. A company in the United Kingdom is testing how the liquid air method—originally developed to power vehicles—could help use some of this “wrong-time” energy.
The method would use electricity from off-peak hours to take in air—removing carbon dioxide and water vapor in order to chill air to a cryogenic state. This turns what’s left, which is mostly nitrogen, to a liquid that is stored in giant vacuum flasks until demand increases and it can be warmed again. Re-expanding air could be used to drive turbines.
While the growth in renewables is among the contributing factors to the 9 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. since 2005, one analysis says this decline is unlikely to continue unless there are major departures from the way energy is currently produced and used. The report lays out specific energy-related changes that would need to occur between now and 2035 to have a chance at reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 38 percent below 2005 levels. These include: growth in renewables beyond the 5 percent electricity makeup today to 31 percent by 2035 as well as gains in residential, commercial and industrial energy-using equipment.
Energy Claims among Revised Guidelines for Green Product Labels
The Federal Trade Commission is clamping down on “Green” or “Eco” product labeling—updating marketing guidelines for the first time since 1998. Now, the Commission says product manufacturers better have data to back up claims. Updates cover not only topics in the existing guide, but include new sections clarifying renewable energy and materials claims, as well as the use of carbon offsets and “green” certifications. Specifically, the guides renewable energy claims section instructs marketers to consider specifying the type of energy source used to remain less deceptive. To further avoid the possibility of fines, it cautions against making unqualified “made with renewable energy claims.” It notes that would be deceptive “… unless all, or virtually all, of the significant manufacturing processes involved in making the product or package are powered with renewable energy or non-renewable energy matched by renewable energy certificates.”
Farm Bill Lapses, as Plant Discoveries are Made
As the Weather Channel announced plans to assign names to winter storms as they do for hurricanes, the drought’s effect on crops coupled with the lapse of the Farm Bill has left some to question the larger consequences of the expiration. The Washington Post breaks down what to expect now that the law governing many of our nation’s farm policies has expired. Among the potential consequences: higher milk prices and the lapse of some conservation programs. Mark Hertsgaard, in The New York Times, says the bill is not only a “centerpiece of United States food and agricultural policy, it is also a de facto climate bill.”
Meanwhile, a trio of scientists studying inland plants described in the journal Nature the opposite of what many climate models predict—inland plants may not be so great at pulling increasing carbon dioxide from the air. Looking back on a 13-year set of observations from experimental grassland plots in Minnesota, the study authors found heightened carbon dioxide means more plant growth, but only if there’s the right mix of nutrients available in the soil.
The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.