On Friday the Department of Energy issued a press release indicating it had reached an agreement with the FutureGen Alliance (the private part of this public-private partnership).  The agreement would allow the project to move forward with needed planning, research, and design activities, with a final decision on building the plant in early 2010.  Most of the DOE contribution will come from Recovery Act funds.

NOTE: FWIW, I will continue blogging after the pending retirement of this site.  Unlike Roger, my shingle is not yet ready.  Once it is (and it should be soon), I’ll post the link here.

The bill would establish a stand-alone National Climate Service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  The purpose of the service would be to:

(1) advance understanding of climate variability and change at the global, national, and regional levels;

(2) provide forecasts, warnings, and other information to the public on variability and change in weather and climate that affect geographic areas, natural resources, infrastructure, economic sectors, and communities; and

(3) support development of adaptation and response plans by Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and the public.

More specific functional responsibilities of the proposed Service are in Section 4(c)(5) of the bill.  If the bill is passed, the NOAA Administrator would have to develop an implementation plan that would provide more detail about the responsibilities for the NCS and how it would fit with the rest of NOAA.

The NCS would leverage some of the stations and locations of the National Weather Service to establish itself across the nation.  It would share information with other NOAA components as needed.  As described in the legislation (Section 4(c)(1)),

“The Under Secretary shall operate the National Climate Service through a national center, the Climate Service Office, and a network of regional and local facilities, including the established regional and local offices of the National Weather Service, 6 Regional Climate Centers, the offices of the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments program, the National Integrated Drought Information System, and any other National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-supported regional and local entities, as appropriate.”

The bill would also establish cooperative research programs (the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program) that would be awarded through a peer-reviewed process.  The teams working in this program would “conduct applied regional climate research and projects to address the needs of local and regional decisionmakers for information and tools to develop adaptation and response plans to climate variability and change.”

I come to this more from a process/organizational perspective (creating a new agency) than the climate change angle.  A question rolling around in my mind is how this agency would (or would not) mesh with the number of advisory and other bodies that would be created by Waxman-Markey.  My sense is that the House is much more invested in Waxman-Markey, but not necessarily in the parts of that bill where the various advisory groups and other entities are established.  That said, it would not surprise me if potential conflicts and overlaps between a National Climate Service and the bodies established in Waxman-Markey are not addressed prior to closure on that legislation.

“The SPC at my request is inventorying all our guidelines and policies that relate to scientific integrity to look for gaps and possible areas for improvement. One SPC focus, for example, will be updating and reaffirming EPA’s Peer Review Handbook and recommending how we can improve implementation of our peer review policies across our programs and regions. I also have asked the SPC to work the National Partnership Council to reaffirm the Agency’s Principles of Scientific Integrity and update the Principles of Scientific Integrity online training.”

It’s also important to note the parts of this memo that are open to misleading interpretation.  Some will read them and think the EPA will only accept policy outcomes dictated by science (whatever that means).  What the language means is that the desired policy outcomes of the EPA will be supported by science that is conducted under current accepted community standards.

“While the laws that EPA implements leave room for policy judgments, the scientific findings on which these judgments are based should be arrived at independently using well-established scientific methods, including peer review, to assure rigor, accuracy, and impartiality. This means that policymakers must respect the expertise and independence of the Agency’s career scientists and independent advisors while insisting that the Agency’s scientific processes meet the highest standards of rigor, quality, and integrity.”

The most important part of the above paragraph is the language that understands the science is the support of policy decisions, not the determinant of those decisions.  Judgment is still king, and judgments will be made on many criteria, not just science.  The EPA Administrator recognizes that there will be conflicts:

“Able scientists may not always agree on what methodologies should be employed or how studies should be interpreted. I am committed to fostering a culture of robust scientific debate and discussion within the Agency, recognizing that in the end senior scientists must take responsibility for resolving differences of opinions using established science policies and their best professional judgment. I intend to work with our science leadership, unions, and career staff to make sure that we respect and encourage free and honest discussion among our scientists while bringing to closure issues that we must resolve to support decision making.”

Now this will not stop anyone, on any side of any issue, from trying to close off debates by appealing to the science.  Those that would suggest new standards of scientific integrity support such actions aren’t reading memos like this closely enough.

At any rate, the request, paraphrased, asked me about whether or not we would see a 100-mpg car with the same kinds of features that we see in cars today.

I was (and am still) reluctant to answer this for a few reasons.

Ultimately, my answer is I don’t know, but I doubt that’s satisfactory to some.

I’m nowhere near a gearhead/petrolhead, as I never mastered a standard shift, and the bulk of my automotive knowledge comes from a combination of Car Talk, Top Gear and Wired’s Autopia.  While I minimize my driving, and try and maximize fuel efficiency as best I can while driving, I know I have more car than I need.

Even for those who aren’t gearheads but are interested in the issue, discussion of cars – especially in the States – can get particularly heated in a way resembling debates over sports teams.  That’s not particularly productive, and I don’t want to encourage it here.

Finally, I’m not sure that framing the question in terms of 100 mpg is really the best way to address the problems increased fuel efficiency is trying to solve.  Emissions can be reduced by driving less as well as driving more fuel-efficient (or non fossil fuel) vehicles, or some combination thereof.  The drop in miles driven in the United States, as well as the possible shuttering of makes and models that were on the lower end of the efficiency spectrum, can be as beneficial as increasing mileage.  Cost (both in money and emissions) per mile seem a better take on what the agitation in this area is aimed at reducing.

That said, I shall try and give an answer.  I think its possible that a 100 mpg car can be developed and sold successfully.  Given the embrace of good diesel and what amounts to a head start to 100 mpg (compacts in Europe can have an average MPG of at least twice the closest American equivalent – more if using diesel), I expect it to happen in Europe before it takes root in the U.S.  The efforts of Tesla and its electric sports car, as well as the Honda Clarity fuel cell car (both featured on the latest Top Gear episode to premiere in the U.S.), suggest that good, fast, and/or sporty alternatives to internal combustion are possible, but not yet ready for a consumer market.  Will they be the same as their internal combustion-based cousins?  No, but I have reason to think they will come close.

As one looks farther down the list of the top 20 priorities, “Global Warming” ranks last (i.e. “Dealing with Global Warming”).    Yet, what I found noteworthy is that the “environment” is ranked sixteenth (i.e. “Protecting the Environment”).  The Pew Center (and thus, suggesting Americans) finds global warming, the environment, and energy to be separate issues.

Evidently, the White House feels differently then the American people.    Whitehouse.gov lumps together energy and the environment.  The agenda lists many things that would, in theory, reduce greenhouse gases and “Make the US a Leader in Climate Change.”  Interestingly, the website’s only mention of the environment is that foreign oil wreaks “havoc” on it.  Further, it appears that to speak of energy is to speak of climate change is to speak of the environment (or vice versa I suppose).

However, it’s not that energy, climate change, and the environment has been lumped together as one issue that I find interesting.   It is that climate change has been pushed onto the policy agenda relinquishing all other environmental issues… even with Americans’ concern for protecting the environment to be greater then that for dealing with climate change.

This agency is being created by multilateral agreement, with more than 75 countries currently signed on.  As of this moment, the United States, United Kingdom, China and Brazil are not signatory to the agency.  Given the energy usage of those countries, hopefully that changes by the time the agency holds its first formal conference next year.

The best (or worst, depending on how you frame this) example remains career scientist and current EPA head Stephen Johnson.  For evidence, take a gander at this recent profile in the Philadelphia Inquirer (H/T: Reality Base).  Saying anything more might just be piling on.

Unfortunately, the harder sell is the inverse: that just because someone isn’t a scientist doesn’t mean they’d be a bad scientific appointee.

I’m not sure how instructive Gordon’s comments will be, as it seems that he was jumping on the energy and climate bandwagon driven by the appointment of Dr. Chu as Energy Secretary.  Once subcommittee assignments are finalized in January, the agenda of the committee might become more clear.

▪ Howard Buffet
▪ David Burd – Arnold & Porter
▪ Dan Chenok – Pragmatics general manager
▪ Aneesh Chopra – Virginia Technology Secretary
▪ Jack Chorowsky – Levin Capital Strategies
▪ Cheryl Dorsey – Echoing Green
▪ Joshua Dubois – Obama religious adviser
▪ Judy Estrin – JLabs CEO
▪ Tom Freedman – Progressive Policy Institute
▪ Jim Halpert – DLA Piper
▪ Mark Johnson
▪ Michele Jolin – Center for American Progress
▪ Tom Kalil – University of California, Berkeley
▪ Kei Koizumi – American Association for the Advancement of Science
▪ Vivek Kundra – D.C. Chief Technology Officer
▪ Don Lamb – University of Chicago
▪ John Leibovitz – Frontline Wireless
▪ Bruce McConnell – Government Futures LLC
▪ Andrew McLaughlin – Google
▪ Parry Norling – Chemical Heritage Foundation
▪ Beth Noveck – New York Law School
▪ Spencer Overton – George Washington University Law School
▪ Lori Perine – Interpretech CEO
▪ Kartik Raghavan – Trilogy Equity Partners
▪ Alec Ross – One Economy
▪ Paul Schmitz – Public Allies CEO
▪ Clifford Sloan – Skadden Arps, formerly of Slate magazine
▪ Steve Spinner – start-up adviser, entrepreneur
▪ Marta Urquilla – American Legacy Foundation
▪ Chris Warren – Non-profit coordinator/organizer
▪ Daniel Weitzner – Massachusetts Institute of Technology
▪ Irving Wladawsky-Berger – IBM Academy of Technology