Two Minnesota organizations have released an important document, the Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan. Created by the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment and the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), the new plan makes policy and research recommendations that are intended to preserve the state’s natural resources in the face of increasing demands and impacts from our society, including climate change. Carbon emission reductions are one of the important goals of the plan.

I haven’t yet had time to do more than a cursory reading of the report’s executive summary and its transportation chapter. Here are a few excerpts from the executive summary:

The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) funded a unique partnership among the University of Minnesota and the consulting firms of Bonestroo and CR Planning to evaluate the state’s natural resources, identify key issues affecting those resources, and make recommendations for improving and protecting them. More than 125 experts, including University scientists and public and private natural resource planners and professionals, participated in the 18-month effort. …

• The key issues for which recommendations are made in this report are:
• Land and water habitat fragmentation, degradation, loss, and conversion
• Land-use practices
• Transportation
• Energy production and use, and mercury as a toxic contaminant related to energy production

Here are the three recommendations from the Transportation chapter:

• Transportation Recommendation 1: Align transportation planning across state agencies and integrate transportation project development and review across state, regional, metropolitan and county/local transportation, land use and conservation programs.
• Transportation Recommendation 2: Reduce per capita vehicle miles of travel (VMT) through compact mixed-use development and multi- and intermodal transportation systems.
• Transportation Recommendation 3: Develop and implement sustainable transportation research, design, planning, and construction practices, regulations, and competitive incentive funding that minimize impacts on natural resources, especially habitat fragmentation and non-point source water pollution.

The report clearly deserves closer reading and the attention of state leaders. Note especially the involvement of leading state scientists and planners.

For more information, see the official press release and a Star Tribune article.

A friend recently loaned me the spring 2008 issue of Yes!, a magazine dedicated to “Building a Just and Sustainable World.” This was a “Climate Solutions Special Issue” with one of my heroes, Bill McKibben, on the cover.

I haven’t yet read the entire section on climate solutions, but I did read its commentary on transportation, by Guy Dauncey. He proposes a future in which 5 percent of the United States’ surface transportation needs are met by walking, 10 percent by biking, 20 percent by transit, 5 percent by teleworking and teleconferencing, 5 percent by trains (presumably longer-distance), 5 percent by ridesharing, and the rest by personal motor vehicles.

What caught my attention more, however, was the magazine’s “The Page That Counts” section, one of those lists of facts that many magazines publish. For this issue, it begins with these three facts:

Amount of its roads budget that Copenhagen devotes to services and infrastructure for cyclists: 1/3 [1]

Amount of money that a community gains for every mile biked instead of driven: 50 cents [2]

Benefit to Norwegian society for each physically inactive citizen who chooses to bike or walk to work: $4,500 - $5,900 [3]

The quoted facts speak to the generally unrecognized benefits of walking and biking. I was especially drawn to the latter two, because they could capture the attention of elected officials, government staff, and other leaders.

Here are the sources for those facts:

1. “Livable Copenhagen: The Design of a Bicycle City,” Alyse Nelson, Center for Public Space Research, Copenhagen, 2007. This is a 7mb pdf file and will take a while to load depending on your internet connection.
2. “Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives,” Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, November 30, 2004.
3. “Walking and cycling track networks in Norwegian cities: Cost-benefit analyses including health effects and external costs of road traffic,” Kjartan Sælensminde, Institute of Transport Economics, 2002.

I hope to dig further into these sources and have already glanced at the second one, by Todd Litman, which is quite impressive.

While any hope for a federal response to climate change this year died today in the U.S. Senate, I’m at least somewhat encouraged by the fact that my wife has located another resource that catalogs the many claims made by climate change skeptics and offers responses to each. It’s in Grist, the environmental news and commentary web site that’s based in Seattle, and it’s titled “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.” I don’t know what you’re community is like, but mine has plenty of skeptics, and I need all the help I can get.

I’m not a regular reader of Grist, though my wife is. They take a lighter approach to environmental issues - lighter than yours truly, for example. I like their slogan: “Grist: it’s gloom and doom with a sense of humor. So laugh now - or the planet gets it.”

See also their commentary on the carbon footprint of biking versus driving, in which they run some of the numbers and, as commonsense would indicate, find that biking comes out ahead.

Earlier this month the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) released its final report. This group of over 50 stakeholders was formed by Governor Tim Pawlenty to assist in developing a Minnesota Climate Mitigation Action Plan (that’s a lot of capital letters). It has some impressive names on it, including Will Steger, the polar explorer and climate change activist; Prof. David Tilman of the University of Minnesota, one of the most esteemed biologists in the world; and J. Drake Hamilton of Fresh Energy, whom I heard recently give an excellent speech on climate change and our response to it. The group also has many other prominent figures representing business, labor, churches, environmental organizations, and other groups.

I’ve read the executive summary and Chapter 5: Transportation and Land Use and was encouraged by what I found. The group has outlined policies for achieving a nearly 30 percent reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025 (with 2005 being the base year), and most of the recommendations were approved unanimously.

The public can now enter comments about the report online (deadline is midnight on Sunday, April 27), and I encourage people to do so. At the very least, you can read the executive summary before doing so, though it is not all that short at 16 pages.

It wasn’t entirely clear to me whether the report claimed that enacting the policies would provide a net savings to the state and its people. It seems the policies would save the public money rather than cost them money, judging by the discussion on page 6 of the executive summary. The report does attempt to quantify the cost of various policies. The most cost-effective measure, for example, is improved statewide building codes; that’s the no-brainer. Read the rest of this entry »

Something very encouraging is happening at my church, the United Methodist Church of Northfield, Minnesota. A group of us have formed a church “Green Team” to focus on Christian stewardship of creation.

Another label we might have chosen for the group is “Creation Care Team.” In some ways I like that better, since it connects us more to our Christian roots. For some, the word “green” has negative political connotations.

We had mentioned forming a group such as this for a while, but then rather suddenly a few weeks ago, following an adult education forum on energy usage, we decided to meet informally during and/or following the church’s Wednesday night dinners. Many of us were already attending these dinners, and child care is provided, so the setting seemed to be a natural one. Thus we began to talk about environmental issues each week.

Last Sunday, the team made a group presentation at the Sunday education forum, each taking a few minutes to address a specific topic. One person made an impressive, well-substantiated presentation on “peak oil” - the concept that a peak in oil production has been or will soon be reached. Another, an engineer, spoke on his long-standing connection to energy research, including work on solar power and innovative window designs. He said the obstacles to making significant strides in energy conservation are political rather than technological or economic. Another engineer spoke of his work on our city’s energy task force and his use of a device to monitor real-time electricity usage in his home. Read the rest of this entry »

Note: The post below and headline above have been edited since the original publication to correct inaccuracies. The Declaration listed below was not a document approved by the Southern Baptist Convention, as I originally wrote. The inaccuracy was a result of my misreading of the New York Times article listed below. I apologize for this error.

A group of Southern Baptist leaders has issued a document entitled “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.” Signers of the new declaration include the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as two former presidents. The declaration was organized by the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, which is distinct from the Southern Baptist Convention.

The group’s declaration differs strongly from a June 2007 Southern Baptist Convention resolution on global warming that is skeptical about whether global warming is caused by humans and whether significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are warranted. The smaller group’s declaration, in contrast, states, “current denominational engagement with these issues [has] often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better.”

See a New York Times article on the new declaration and the Southern Baptist Convention press release written in response to it.

Thank goodness the Upper Midwest has meteorologist Paul Douglas helping to draw attention to the threat from global warming. These words from Mr. Douglas’s StarTribune weather column today really caught my attention:

�Paul, you pinhead, doesn�t our recent arctic streak prove that global warming is a hoax?� With all due respect, no. From -11 last Wednesday to 44 yesterday in St. Paul, 48 in Red Wing, these local, erratic weather spasms are not the same thing as long-term climate trends measured globally over the last generation. Worldwide 2007 was the 5th warmest, last year the 10th warmest for the U.S. since 1895. So what? �Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters - disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life - the threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism.� More left-leaning spew from the liberal elite? No. Those are but a few of the conclusions from a secret Pentagon report, recently obtained by the U.K. newspaper, The Observer. �Climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern,� says the lead authors. I don�t consider myself an alarmist or a so-called �warmist�. I am a realist. No, science is never 100% certain about anything, but what is the more acceptable risk, taking some action now and being wrong, or doing nothing, rolling the dice, gambling that a 37% spike in greenhouse gases will have no effect? It�s basic risk analysis.

Wow. I agree with what Mr. Douglas has said here, but I think the report he is citing is not all that recent. The Observer article he cites is dated February 22, 2004. I guess “recent” is a rather loose term.

Still, Paul, thanks for bringing this up. I’m hearing more about “global climate chaos” lately, so the 2004 (or earlier) report is still relevant.

Let’s elevate global warming to a national security concern and deal with it. Those of you concerned about national security, please read the peer-reviewed science (or the work of a journalist who has read it) and get on board this train. It also has room for those of you who want to make and save some money from clean energy and energy efficiency.

It’s been nearly a week now since the Bali climate talks ended in a last-minute agreement that involved compromise on both sides: the sides, in this case, being the United States and most of the world. After being booed and hissed, the U.S. delegation, led by the Bush administration, finally agreed to continue talks on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that would limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is a summary of the agreement from an excellent Dec. 16 article by New York Times reporters Thomas Fuller and Andrew C. Revkin.

The world�s faltering effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions got a new lease on life on Saturday [Dec. 16], as delegates from 187 countries agreed to negotiate a new accord over the next two years � pushing the crucial debates about United States participation into the administration of a new American president.

Many officials and environmental campaigners said American negotiators had remained obstructionist until the final hour of the two-week convention and had changed their stance only after public rebukes that included boos and hisses from other delegates.

The resulting �Bali Action Plan� contains no binding commitments, which European countries had sought and the United States fended off. The plan concludes that �deep cuts in global emissions will be required� and provides a timetable for two years of talks to shape the first formal addendum to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty since the Kyoto Protocol 10 years ago.

I recommend reading the full article for a sense of the drama of the talks and of U.S. foot-dragging regarding substantive, timely action on mitigating global warming. The U.S. was shamed into action, and in acknowledging that I feel a sense of shame about my country.

Here are some more excerpts from the article, including the description of the two-track approach that the U.S. agreed to, in which developed and nondeveloped countries would come to separate agreements on the response to climate change:

Read the rest of this entry »

This past year turned out to be a record-breaker for Arctic warming, according to scientists quoted in an article by Seth Borenstein, Associated Press science writer. The portents are not good and should embolden us to act more aggressively to curb carbon emissions.

Below are some excerpts from the article. Warning: some of the quotes from the scientists are among the most alarming that I’ve seen on the climate change issue.

Greenland’s ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer’s end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.

“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo. Read the rest of this entry »

So much is happening now on the issue of our response to global warming. Here’s a quick overview of a few major developments:

� The United Nations Climate Change Conference is occurring in Bali, Indonesia, December 3-14. The conference will look at changes to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the Kyoto Protocol. Here is a description of the goals of the conference, taken from its web site:

What is needed is a breakthrough in the form of a roadmap for a future international agreement on enhanced global action to fight climate change in the period after 2012, the year the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires. The main goal of the Bali Conference is threefold: to launch negotiations on a climate change deal for the post-2012 period, to set the agenda for these negotiations and to reach agreement on when these negotiations will have to be concluded.

A very important meeting indeed.

� The U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee approved a landmark bill that would call for a 70 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, partly through the use of a cap and trade system. (Environmentalists favor cuts of 80 to 90 percent.) The bill would need the support of ten or twelve Republicans in order to pass.

The legislation is sponsored by Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and John Warner of Virginia, the latter a Republican. Warner’s rationale for taking action, stated yesterday, is good: if we don’t take action on this, then China and India can hide behind us, saying that they don’t need to take action. See a New York Times article for more info.

Contact your senators, folks, and tell them to pass this bill. This is one of the most important issues of our times, and we can’t sit on our hands.

� Here in my state, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group continues to meet and has approved its first recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, I didn’t see a comprehensive list of those recommendations in the media, but the group is not scheduled to conclude until early February. See the Transportation and Land Use Technical Work Group document for more info on that topic.