People’s Climate March

Today is the People’s Climate March here in New York City. Sponsored by peoplesclimate.org, the march here is joined by events in other major cities around the world, including London, Berlin, Bogota, Istanbul, Paris, Rio, Delhi, Melbourne, Johannesburg, Lagos, and Amsterdam. The marches and other events are intended to put pressure on international leaders who will meet at the United Nations Climate Summit 2014 on Tuesday to create the framework for a global agreement on emissions that (it is hoped) will be agreed upon in Paris late next year.

If that agreement occurs it will certainly be a case of politicians leading from behind. As I’ve noted here and here and here, researchers at organizations as diverse as NASA, NOAA, and IPCC have been telling us that the climate is changing now, that change is accelerating, and that we’ve already reached the tipping point in places like Antarctica’s Western Ice Sheet. And the news just keeps piling up. NOAA has announced that the combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was a record high for the month, at 1.35°F above the 20th century average of 60.1°F, topping the previous record set in 1998. The global land surface temperature was 1.78°F above the 20^th century average. Here’s a map of the global temperature variations compared to the base period of 1981-2010.

The August report means that globally, June through August 2014 is the 5^th hottest on record. The four periods that were hotter than this year have all occurred since 1998.

Since the founding of the IPCC in 1988 progress has been slow and halting (a history of UN climate actions can be found here). Let’s hope that strong action is agreed to this time.

IES Releases RP-31-14 Recommended Practice for the Economic Analysis of Lighting

The Illuminating Engineering Society has released a new Recommended Practice. RP-31-14 Recommended Practice for the Economic Analysis of Lighting is now available as a PDF download or soft back from the IES Online Store. From the IES:

Good lighting should be responsive to the needs of the user. Among those needs are the aesthetic and the visual, as admitted in the oft-quoted “lighting is both a science and an art.” But the user also has economic needs. In fact, it is the economic needs that often drive the decision making process when lighting systems are designed and purchased.

This recommended practice is written from the point of view that “economic analysis” is not the same as “how to beat the budget.” Rather than considering economic analysis as the antithesis of engineering or artistic analysis, is should be thought of as subsuming these other needs. When a competent lighting professional takes care of economic needs, in conjunction with the artistic, engineering, and other needs, it increases the likelihood a project will have success and longevity. Financial considerations ad demonstrated through an accurate lighting financial analysis are important, but other elements such as aesthetics, human visual performance resulting from a lighting system appropriate to a given task, and other considerations involved in lighting for the human and natural environment are of equal importance.

Now, the Good Climate News

Ok, the headline is slightly misleading. There’s no good news about the fact of climate change, but there is some good news about the politics and the technology for mitigating it. First, the politics where there are several encouraging developments. First, as I’ve previously mentioned, Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Tom Steyer have launched an organization called Risky Business that focuses on quantifying and publicizing the economic risks from the impacts of climate change. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and this is an example – people from across the political spectrum and with various perspectives on business and the economy coming together to advocate that we act now to do what we can to slow or stop climate change.

The second piece of news happened at a congressional hearing on June 18^th (an archived webcast is available at the link). Four former EPA administrators, all republicans, were called to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. All four of them agreed that there is no debate on the reality of climate change and that immediate action is needed. Here are a few quotes:

William Ruckelshaus, first EPA administrator in 1970 under President Nixon: “Inherent in [a list of previously cited environmental challenges] was uncertain science and powerful economic interests resisting controls. The same is true of climate change. In all of the cases cited the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity. Scientific uncertainty or the inevitable industry resistance does not mean that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of inaction.”

Lee Thomas, EPA administrator from 1985-1989 under President Reagan: “The issue of climate change is one that the EPA and the global scientific community have studied and analyzed for decades. And since my time as Administrator, the assessment of risk global warming poses to public health and the environment has continually improved and become more certain.”

William Reilly, head of the EPA from 1989-1992 under President George H. W. Bush: “Markets the world over eagerly seek clean energy technologies. … Technology and innovation are a comparative advantage for our country that will help control what we can and help find ways to replace the most serious contributors to the climate challenge. This is an enormous opportunity for U.S. entrepreneurs and exporters even as we deploy more clean energy at home.”

Christine Todd Whitman, EPA head from 2001-2003 under President George W. Bush: “Congressional action and leadership would be a preferable approach. But since Congress has declined to act, the EPA must.”

It’s getting harder and harder for the conservative crowd to deny reality. Sooner, not later, they’re going to have to admit that we face a global challenge. At that point they’ll have to decide if the U.S. is going to lead or follow. Industry and citizens clearly intend to lead. Consider the following:

On the technology front there’s more good news. In Hawaii the adoption of solar power has been so successful that the local power company can’t handle the power being fed into the grid. Beginning in December of 2013 the Hawaiian Electric Company told contractors to stop connecting solar panels to the grid because there’s so much energy that it may be a threat to the system. Until studies can confirm whether grid upgrade are needed, and what they are, solar panels can still be connected to homes and businesses but the excess energy cannot be fed back into the grid.

One solution to the problem is storage of the excess energy until it is needed. A new type of battery that uses vanadium in a solution of sulfuric acid is being developed that quickly charges and discharges with little loss of performance, even after 20,000 cycles. It’s called a vanadium redox flow battery. Read the article. It’s pretty amazing to read how smart people are able to solve whatever challenges are put in front of them.

First, The Bad Climate News

There’s more climate change news this week, some of it good and which I’ll get to in a few days. First, though, the bad news. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) May 2014 was the hottest May ever recorded, and we have records dating back as far as 1880.

The combined average temperature over land and ocean surfaces was 1.33°F higher than the 20^th century average, and the average temperature over land alone was 2.03°F higher.
The period of March through May was the third warmest on record, with global land surface temperature 2.27°F above the 20^th century average.
he period of January through may was the fifth warmest on record, with a global land surface temperature of 1.19°F above the 20^th century average.

Here’s a map showing the global temperature variations for May in degrees Celsius.

Combined with the just released report Risky Business, this is indeed bad news. This report was commissioned by a new organization of the same name that was started by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. The report warns that, among other climate driven issues we’ll face by mid century, the number of days over 95°F will nearly double to between 45 and 96. Outdoor laborers, including construction workers, may be unable to work for days or weeks at a time because of the extreme threat of heat stroke and even death due to the high heat.

Why do I keep going on about climate change? Because it’s real, it’s here, and it does and will affect the lighting profession. As long as we are still struggling to control greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change we should expect to see it impact lighting designers and manufacturers. First, we should expect to see expanded requirements for, and limitations on, lighting systems. Lower lumen power densities (LPDs), more requirements for sensors and controls, and more requirements for load shedding all seem inevitable. On one hand that may be good for the profession because fewer and fewer architects and interior designers are going to be able to execute their own lighting designs (more work for us!). On the other hand it will probably be a struggle to get clients to pay us more for the additional work.

The second impact this will have on our profession is that of credentials. Today, lighting designer credentials are entirely voluntary except for the lead designer on federal projects, who must hold an LC. I think we can expect more clients to ask for higher levels of green certification for their buildings, whether that is LEED, Green Globes, Energy Star or some other. To demonstrate that we have the education and training to design these buildings, green credentials are going to be more important in the near future. Designers who do not hold a LEED Green Associate credential, at a minimum, will be at a disadvantage. So get ready. The work, and the rewards, of being a lighting designer are changing.

The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change (It’s Cheap)

Henry Paulson, former Secretary of the Treasury, has on op-ed piece in today’s New York Times in which he looks at the potential costs of climate change from a risk management perspective. His conclusion is that the most conservative thing to do, the thing that will hold down the size of government and our national debt, is to act now to mitigate climate change while the costs are low and we have more time. His solution is a carbon tax, which he predicts will “empower the market to find the most efficient response” and will “create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.” He makes several comparisons to the risks that were ignored leading up to the economic crash of 2008 and makes a point of urging his fellow republicans to avoid the same mistakes that were made then.

Conservatives reaction to a carbon tax, cap and trade, or any other form of legislation to curb emissions is always to claim that it will be disastrous for industry and the economy. However two recent studies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dispute that. As I’ve noted before, the IPCC estimates that the costs of stabilizing CO2 is 0.6% to 1.3% of GDP. Perhaps you distrust the United Nations, so let’s take a look at what the Chamber of Commerce has to say. The chamber commissioned a study that was released in May. Deeply opposed to any form of energy or environmental regulation, they commissioned a report from an organization with similar attitudes – the Energy Institute. Their findings estimate the cost of carbon regulation at $51 billion per year through 2030. Now to you and me that’s a lot of money, but in the $21.5 trillion U.S. economy that comes out to 0.2%. To put that into personal terms, it amounts to about $1.20 per day per household.

I’m not saying that there is no downside. Jobs will be lost in extractive industries like coal and oil. I’ve been unemployed. I know what it’s like to worry about paying rent or buying groceries, and I’d like to see those who lose their jobs get retraining and even subsidized moves so that they can go to where the new jobs are located. But, I don’t think we should smother the planet in CO2 to save jobs that are going to be lost anyway or to hang onto that $1.20 per household. The times they are a-changin’ whether we like it or not. The goal should be to control that change to the benefit of as many people as possible. Acting now makes that easier to do.

Some Thoughts on Climate Change

The climate related news lately has been pretty bleak. The news includes:

Separate studies by NASA and the University of Washington both find that the Western Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing into the sea. At this point the melting is unstoppable and could raise global sea levels by 4 feet. To put this into perspective, the average elevation of Miami is 6 feet above sea level.
The Carbon Tracker Initiative has estimated that 60% to 80% of our coal, oil, and gas reserves are “unburnable” if we are to limit global warming to a somewhat manageable 2°C.
According to NOAA, CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii have risen by 24% in just the past 56 years.

Which naturally had me asking what I can do as a citizen and as a lighting professional. My initial thought was, “Not nearly enough to make a difference.” But, once I recovered my balance I realized that things aren’t as gloomy as they seem. Yes, we still have a long way to go in order to maintain a livable planet. This includes that fact that some industries are going to fade away, be legislated away, or be forced to adapt to new circumstances. The economic impact of that doesn’t worry me too much for several reasons. First, the IPCC finds that the sooner we act the easier the transition will be, and that the cost of addressing climate change would result in an average annual reduction in economic growth of a mere 0.06% for the rest of this century. Second, those industries that become obsolete will be replaced by new industries. Imagine the jobs that would be created if every flat roof in every city were to be outfitted with solar panels.

We also need the Republican Party to join the real world. When 97% of the world’s climate scientists in industry, government, and research institutions agree that climate change is happening and that the cause is man-made only a fool would join with the remaining three percent. When someone like Marco Rubio says that he’s not convinced, he doesn’t mean that he’s reviewed the research history and, because of his deep expertise in this field, finds the conclusions lacking. He means that some of his biggest donors are companies and individuals who rely on fossil fuels for their wealth and that rather than adapt they are going to deny. Fortunately, although only 25% of Tea Party Republicans believe that there is evidence for climate change, 84% of Democrats and 67% of all American adults do believe the scientists.

On the positive side, our profession has accomplished quite a bit. For example, the maximum lighting power density (LPD) allowed under ASHRAE 90.1for an open office was 1.9 w/sf in 1986, 1.3 w/sf in 1999, and .98 w/sf in 2010. And, our clients are asking for more. Here are the number of LEED certified buildings 2000 – 2012.

That last number is 4,605 projects in 2012, when 41% of all nonresidential buildings starts were green, as compared to 2% of all nonresidential building starts in 2005. Better than that, Net Zero buildings are a reality, and as the design and construction industries adapt we’re going to see more of them. Other organizations are working on this, too. For example, Architecture2030.org already has commitments from a number of U.S. cities and property owners representing about 100,000,000 square feet of real estate to dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

So designers and builders have begun, and we’re moving with increasing speed toward reducing the effect of the built environment on climate change. But there’s more to do, including convincing those who oppose action that a planned transition is achievable, affordable, sustainable, and in the best interest of the entire planet.

ALEC On The Wrong Side Of History

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with funding from fossil fuel producers and the utility industry, has turned its attention to renewable energy, and not in a good way. Their latest push is to levy a surcharge on homeowners who install solar panels and then feed electricity back into the grid when the panels generate more electricity than the home is using. The legislation has already passed in Oklahoma and Arizona. Known as net metering and required by 43 states, this practice reduces the homeowner’s utility bill and the amount of energy that the utilities have to produce. A win-win, right? Wrong! Because by reducing the homeowner’s bill it reduces the utility companies profits as outlined in a report by the Edison Electric Institute.

ALEC claims that reduced utility company income will prevent them from maintaining the electricity distribution system, and if large-scale adoption of solar takes place we as a society may indeed have to reconsider the way that we finance the maintenance of the system. However, discouraging adoption of renewable energy is not the way to go. We absolutely need more renewable sources of electricity and less reliance on fossil fuels, as made clear by several reports that have been released recently. Consider the following:

The latest work by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that climate scientists have high confidence in:
- Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.
- Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services.
- Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.

The Carbon Tracker Initiative has estimated that 60% to 80% of the coal, oil, and gas reserves of publicly traded companies are “unburnable” if we are to limit global warming to a somewhat manageable 2°C, as opposed to the catastrophic 9°C that would result from inaction on climate change.

The global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million for the first time in recorded history, as reported by NASA. According to NOAA, CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii have risen by 24% in just the past 56 years.

Clearly, protecting the profitability of utilities and fossil fuel companies shouldn’t be a consideration. Nor should the economic impact of addressing climate change. The IPCC finds that the cost of addressing climate change would result in an average reduction in economic growth of a mere 0.06% for the rest of this century.

Meanwhile, the cost per watt of solar modules is dropping with breathtaking speed. In 1980 the cost per watt was over $16. In 2012 it was $1, just a few cents more than the upper cost for coal and natural gas. From 2011 to 2013 the cost of installed solar systems fell by 50%. Projecting these downward curves forward it’s easy to see that in just a few years solar is likely to be less expensive than fossil fuels.

Of course, one of the biggest problems with renewables such as solar and wind is that they aren’t consistent. This means that to increase our dependence on them we need a way to store energy when it’s produced and retrieve it when it’s needed. Fortunately, brilliant (pun intended) people are working on the storage issue. The latest promising technology uses a recently discovered material, grapheme, to produce rechargeable batteries that can hold at least twice as much energy as lithium ion batteries. You can read about these advancements in The Guardian and Energy Harvesting Journal.

So it seems to me that ALEC and its backers may win another victory or two before the tide sweeps them aside because they are on the wrong side of history. First, science tells us that we as a society must make changes, including a massive conversion to renewable energy. Second, technology is making the adoption of renewable energy possible with ever increasing speed. Third, economics tells us that we as individuals will soon be able to save money by installing solar panels on our homes because we’ll be able to generate electricity cheaper than the utilities.

Let’s Not Try So That We Don’t Succeed

Two frustrating items came across my desk this morning. The first is an attempt by two Ohio state senators (both Republicans) to pass a law (SRC25) prohibiting the use of LEED in all Ohio state buildings, including schools. This despite the fact that Ohio already has 100+ LEED school buildings that are saving tax payers tens of thousands of dollars on energy bills every year. What’s the rationale for the new bill? You can read the full text here, but essentially it claims that LEED v4 “fails to conform to recognized voluntary standard development procedures.”

Why is LEED, the largest and most successful green program in the world, being singled out? This is really just a smokescreen for an attempt to protect certain industries and manufacturers from divulging the contents of their building materials, which is new under LEED v4. The reason favoring disclosure is simple. Some building materials have chemical components that seep out of the product and into the indoor environment, a process called off-gassing. Without disclosure from manufacturers the architects and owners have no way of knowing what chemicals workers, students, patients, etc. are being exposed to. With disclosure they can make better choices that minimize any possible effects on building occupants. Some manufacturers have been very pro-active about reformulating their products to limit or eliminate off-gassing. Apparently some have decided that ignorance (on the part of architects, owners, and occupants) is bliss (for the manufacturer).

The second news item concerns an amendment to a bill working its way through the U.S. Senate. The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitive Act (ESICA), if passed, would be the first new energy efficiency related legislation passed in seven years. The problem? The “All-Of-The-Above Federal Building Energy Conservation Act of 2013” failed to pass last year, but is now part of ESICA. It calls for the repeal of Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which mandates that the federal government eliminate fossil fuel-generated energy from new and renovated federal buildings by 2030. In other words, it would repeal the government’s commitment to the 2030 Challenge for carbon reduction. The AIAs response can be found here. Other organizations opposing the amendment include Architecture 2030 and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Not surprisingly, the sponsors of the amendment are from states where fossil fuel production is a major industry. It’s true that the U.S has enormous reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas that can supply our energy needs for many years to come. It’s also true that we’re changing the global environment by burning these fuels. We can decide to wait until our reserves are used up before we entertain making a change. However, in doing so, we are also deciding to allow Germany, Japan, South Korea, China etc. to develop the technologies that will power the future. Alternatively, we can decide to lead the energy revolution by developing the technologies, and the markets for them, here at home. Contact your senator and let him/her know which path you’d prefer to take.