August 06, 2010, 12:04 AM EDT
Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration pledged $1 billion in stimulus funds to capture carbon emissions from a coal-fired Ameren Corp. power plant in Illinois, the biggest U.S. effort to show the polluting fuel can be made cleaner.
The FutureGen 2.0 project will revamp a 200-megawatt unit at Ameren’s plant in Meredosia, Illinois, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said in an e-mailed statement yesterday. Babcock & Wilcox Co. and a group of energy companies are participants in the plan.
The project replaces a stalled Bush administration plan to build a clean-coal plant from the ground up in Mattoon, Illinois. Instead, the new proposal calls for a network of pipelines to deliver carbon dioxide generated from burning coal to a repository in Mattoon that may serve as a storage site for other plants in the region.
The award will “help ensure the U.S. remains competitive in a carbon-constrained economy, creating jobs while reducing greenhouse gas pollution,” Chu said in the statement.
The project will demonstrate how carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fueled power plants can be captured from smokestacks and shipped for storage, the Energy Department said.
Coal generates about half of U.S. electricity and accounts for about 40 percent of its manmade emissions, which most scientists say contributes to global warming. Coal also is the most abundant fossil fuel source in the U.S.
The revised project remains a “boondoggle,” said Bruce Nilles, director of energy programs for the San Francisco-based Sierra Club.
‘Smarter, Cheaper Ways’
“There are smarter, cheaper ways to cut pollution without relying on 19th century fossil-fuel technology,”
FutureGen 2.0 is intended to retrofit a 200-megawatt unit at Ameren’s Meredosia plant with an “advanced oxy-combustion” technology, new boiler, and air-separation unit to capture 90 percent of the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions. It would also cut most emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause smog and acid rain, as well as toxic mercury.
Testing the technology on the Ameren plant will help determine whether more coal plants can be retrofitted to continue operating economically, the developers said. The plant rebuilding and pipeline will create about 775 construction jobs, they said.
The Energy Department’s original plan for the project was to build a 275-megawatt plant that transforms coal into a gas to make it cleaner-burning. That project was dropped after cost estimates more than doubled the initial $950 million price tag. The accuracy of those estimates remained in dispute.
--Editors: Larry Liebert, Steve Walsh
To contact the reporters on this story: Jim Snyder in Washington at jsnyder24@bloomberg.net; Christopher Martin in New York at cmartin11@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net.
Friday, 6 August 2010
Examining Energy Efficiency Goals for 2010 and Beyond
Aug 5, 2010 Duane Sharp
Wind Turbine - www.sxc.huReducing energy consumption by improving the efficiency of lighting, using greener building materials, and monitoring power consumption, will yield results.
Increasing the efficiency of energy-consuming devices is an effective way to create new jobs in the next few years, and saving money for consumers and businesses which cannot afford to invest in new renewable energy projects or devices.
The long-term benefits of improving energy efficiency in the many different energy-consuming devices used by society, will be a reduction in North America's dependence on foreign oil, and reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Energy Efficiency Investments Top Solar Power
In 2009, venture capital investment in energy efficiency hit a record high at $1 billion, according to a preliminary tally by the Cleantech Group and Deloitte. This investment represents an increase of 39 percent over 2008. However, solar power investments were down 64 percent in 2009, from a 2008 dollar value of $1.2 billion, partly because solar is viewed as being ‘over-funded.(San Jose Mercury News,"Energy efficiency to shine in 2010," Dana Hull, January, 2010)
Solar Energy Grant Government Solar Feed-in Grants. Earn from Solar PV. Get a Quote Now www.solarguide.co.ukGet Tax Free £ with Solar Earn Up To £2000 from Solar Grants Guaranteed for 25 Years, Contact Us www.SolarEurope.co.ukSolar and wind power will continue to attract attention, but 2010 will see a positive shift to energy conservation, according to green-tech experts, who claim that the mundane but critical process of reducing the levels of consumption of gas and electricity in homes and offices use, will be a key focus.(Hull)
To solve the problem of climate change, home energy carbon emissions need to be minimized, although it is impossible to reduce personal carbon emissions to zero. Going carbon neutral by purchasing carbon offsets provides a practical and affordable way to minimize the effect of individual carbon emissions.
Home Energy Carbon Footprint Twice Passenger Cars
By voluntarily calculating and assigning a cost to individual carbon emissions, those who participate in this program have an opportunity to prepare for the possibility that there will eventually be regulations and taxes on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. For both businesses and individuals, this is an important step towards managing carbon emissions efficiently and identifying potential for reductions and savings.
In addition, heating and cooling upgrades can reduce household energy consumption by 10 to 40 percent, Since home energy consumption accounts for 21 percent of the U.S. carbon footprint,(Pew Center on Global Climate Change), a reduction in thsi form of energy consumption could have a significant impact, especially when home energy use contributes about twice the carbon emissions of passenger cars.
Government Funding for a Portfolio of Technologies
The U.S. Energy Department is funding a "portfolio of technologies" that will compete for a share of a growing domestic and global markets in energy technologies and devices.(Hull)
© 2010 Duane Sharp
Wind Turbine - www.sxc.huReducing energy consumption by improving the efficiency of lighting, using greener building materials, and monitoring power consumption, will yield results.
Increasing the efficiency of energy-consuming devices is an effective way to create new jobs in the next few years, and saving money for consumers and businesses which cannot afford to invest in new renewable energy projects or devices.
The long-term benefits of improving energy efficiency in the many different energy-consuming devices used by society, will be a reduction in North America's dependence on foreign oil, and reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Energy Efficiency Investments Top Solar Power
In 2009, venture capital investment in energy efficiency hit a record high at $1 billion, according to a preliminary tally by the Cleantech Group and Deloitte. This investment represents an increase of 39 percent over 2008. However, solar power investments were down 64 percent in 2009, from a 2008 dollar value of $1.2 billion, partly because solar is viewed as being ‘over-funded.(San Jose Mercury News,"Energy efficiency to shine in 2010," Dana Hull, January, 2010)
Solar Energy Grant Government Solar Feed-in Grants. Earn from Solar PV. Get a Quote Now www.solarguide.co.ukGet Tax Free £ with Solar Earn Up To £2000 from Solar Grants Guaranteed for 25 Years, Contact Us www.SolarEurope.co.ukSolar and wind power will continue to attract attention, but 2010 will see a positive shift to energy conservation, according to green-tech experts, who claim that the mundane but critical process of reducing the levels of consumption of gas and electricity in homes and offices use, will be a key focus.(Hull)
To solve the problem of climate change, home energy carbon emissions need to be minimized, although it is impossible to reduce personal carbon emissions to zero. Going carbon neutral by purchasing carbon offsets provides a practical and affordable way to minimize the effect of individual carbon emissions.
Home Energy Carbon Footprint Twice Passenger Cars
By voluntarily calculating and assigning a cost to individual carbon emissions, those who participate in this program have an opportunity to prepare for the possibility that there will eventually be regulations and taxes on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. For both businesses and individuals, this is an important step towards managing carbon emissions efficiently and identifying potential for reductions and savings.
In addition, heating and cooling upgrades can reduce household energy consumption by 10 to 40 percent, Since home energy consumption accounts for 21 percent of the U.S. carbon footprint,(Pew Center on Global Climate Change), a reduction in thsi form of energy consumption could have a significant impact, especially when home energy use contributes about twice the carbon emissions of passenger cars.
Government Funding for a Portfolio of Technologies
The U.S. Energy Department is funding a "portfolio of technologies" that will compete for a share of a growing domestic and global markets in energy technologies and devices.(Hull)
© 2010 Duane Sharp
Councils to sell electricity to the national grid in green initiative
By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor
Friday, 6 August 2010
Town halls could become mini power stations under plans to allow councils to sell "green electricity" to the national grid.
The scheme is designed to give local authorities a financial incentive to invest in wind turbines, solar panels and other forms of renewable energy. The cash raised could be channelled back into frontline services or used to limit council tax increases.
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, is preparing to overturn a 34-year-old ban on councils supplying electricity from small-scale green schemes into the grid.
It will be hailed by the Government as a further step towards hitting targets for reducing Britain's CO2 emissions by one-third by 2020.
Solar panels fitted to an average-sized town hall building could raise £10,000 a year for a local authority, while a large stand-alone wind turbine could generate electricity worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Councils in coastal areas could invest in wave power schemes, while those on major estuaries could attempt to generate electricity from the movement of the tides.
Others could invest in anaerobic digestion, a process used to treat waste water, which as a by-product releases gases suitable for energy production.
The move was welcomed by the Local Government Association as a "victory for councils who want to transform the way we provide cheap and green power for millions of people".
Gary Porter, the chairman of its environment board, said: "Town halls across the country are desperate to install solar panels and other renewable energy measures on millions of homes, offices, leisure centres and other council buildings.
"This has the potential to revolutionise the way we produce electricity by turning town halls into green power stations. This could save huge amounts of money to help maintain services in these difficult financial times and keep council tax down."
Several councils have developed renewable energy systems, generating more than 600,000kWh of wind or solar power a year. But the Local Government Act of 1976 prohibits authorities in England and Wales from selling electricity not produced alongside heat.
The rule – which Mr Huhne has denounced as "frankly ridiculous" – was brought in to protect emerging private electricity companies. It effectively bans the sale to the national grid of energy from renewable sources.
The ban is to be overturned later this month. It would free them to supply the grid – either at feed-in tariff rates or at higher commercial rates. Councils that apply would still need to gain licences through Ofgem, the gas and electricity regulator.
The Renewable Energy Association commented: "This move will allow councils to take a central role in greening the nation."
The initiative follows Government proposals to offer cash incentives to communities to take part ownership of renewable energy projects.
A Government source said: "The idea of the policy is to realise the potential that smaller-scale generation and local effort has in helping meet targets alongside big scale investment."
Further details are due to be announced by Mr Huhne next week.
Ministers are preparing an Energy Bill to be introduced in the autumn which they say is designed to make it easier for home-owners and businesses to save energy, reduce emissions and cut their bills.
Friday, 6 August 2010
Town halls could become mini power stations under plans to allow councils to sell "green electricity" to the national grid.
The scheme is designed to give local authorities a financial incentive to invest in wind turbines, solar panels and other forms of renewable energy. The cash raised could be channelled back into frontline services or used to limit council tax increases.
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, is preparing to overturn a 34-year-old ban on councils supplying electricity from small-scale green schemes into the grid.
It will be hailed by the Government as a further step towards hitting targets for reducing Britain's CO2 emissions by one-third by 2020.
Solar panels fitted to an average-sized town hall building could raise £10,000 a year for a local authority, while a large stand-alone wind turbine could generate electricity worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Councils in coastal areas could invest in wave power schemes, while those on major estuaries could attempt to generate electricity from the movement of the tides.
Others could invest in anaerobic digestion, a process used to treat waste water, which as a by-product releases gases suitable for energy production.
The move was welcomed by the Local Government Association as a "victory for councils who want to transform the way we provide cheap and green power for millions of people".
Gary Porter, the chairman of its environment board, said: "Town halls across the country are desperate to install solar panels and other renewable energy measures on millions of homes, offices, leisure centres and other council buildings.
"This has the potential to revolutionise the way we produce electricity by turning town halls into green power stations. This could save huge amounts of money to help maintain services in these difficult financial times and keep council tax down."
Several councils have developed renewable energy systems, generating more than 600,000kWh of wind or solar power a year. But the Local Government Act of 1976 prohibits authorities in England and Wales from selling electricity not produced alongside heat.
The rule – which Mr Huhne has denounced as "frankly ridiculous" – was brought in to protect emerging private electricity companies. It effectively bans the sale to the national grid of energy from renewable sources.
The ban is to be overturned later this month. It would free them to supply the grid – either at feed-in tariff rates or at higher commercial rates. Councils that apply would still need to gain licences through Ofgem, the gas and electricity regulator.
The Renewable Energy Association commented: "This move will allow councils to take a central role in greening the nation."
The initiative follows Government proposals to offer cash incentives to communities to take part ownership of renewable energy projects.
A Government source said: "The idea of the policy is to realise the potential that smaller-scale generation and local effort has in helping meet targets alongside big scale investment."
Further details are due to be announced by Mr Huhne next week.
Ministers are preparing an Energy Bill to be introduced in the autumn which they say is designed to make it easier for home-owners and businesses to save energy, reduce emissions and cut their bills.
UN incineration plans rejected by world's rubbish-dump workers
Pickers say waste-to-energy incineration plants increase emissions and take away their only means of survival
John Vidal guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 August 2010 12.46 BST
The waste-pickers who scour the world's rubbish dumps and daily recycle thousands of tonnes of metal, paper and plastics are up in arms against the UN, which they claim is forcing them out of work and increasing climate change emissions.
Their complaint, heard yesterday in Bonn where UN global climate change talks have resumed, is that the clean development mechanism (CDM), an ambitious climate finance scheme designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, has led to dozens of giant waste-to-energy incinerators being built to burn municipal rubbish, as well as hundreds of new landfill schemes designed to collect methane gas.
"Waste-pickers, who are some of the poorest people on earth, recover recyclable materials. They are invisible entrepreneurs on the frontline of climate change, earning a living from recovery and recycling, reducing demand for natural resources," says Neil Tangri, director of Gaia, an alliance of 500 anti-incinerator groups in 80 countries.
"But they are being undermined by CDM projects, which deny them entry to dumps. This is leading to further stress and hardship for some of the poorest people in the world and is increasing emissions," he said.
Waste-pickers handle much of the growing mountains of rubbish in developing countries. Nearly 60% of all Delhi's waste, for example, is recycled by an army of tens of thousands of pickers who scavenge for recyclable materials on the city's dumps.
"These workers are providing a public service – for free. Building incinerators robs the poorest of the poor," said Bharati Chaturvedi, director of Indian NGO Chintan which works with waste-pickers and has been opposing a giant incinerator being built in Delhi with CDM money.
Yesterday Gaia called for the CDM to stop approving incinerator waste to energy projects and to start investing climate funds in the informal recycling sector. This, he said, would increase employment and labour conditions while dramatically reducing emissions.
Gaia also argues that the UN's methodology for assessing whether projects should be granted CDM credits does not take into account the emissions saved by recycling.
Recycling and composting, it says, are nearly 25 times more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than waste-to-energy incinerators.
"CDM funding for incineration and landfills represents a lost opportunity to reduce pollution and help improve the welfare of some of the poorest people on earth. This funding incentivises the destruction of valuable resources that would otherwise have been recovered with significant climate benefits."
But a spokeswoman for the CDM said today that waste-to-energy incinerators saved emissions and provided new employment. "These projects would not have taken place without the CDM".
But she said that the CDM would welcome groups of waste-pickers who wanted to apply for UN climate credits. "If they can show, with the correct methodology, that they are saving emissions, they would be eligible, too," she said.
The CDM, set up in 2001, allows rich countries to offset their emissions by investing in projects that reduce emissions in poor countries. In nearly 10 years' operation it claims to have reduced emissions significantly worldwide but has been accused of allowing fraud by unscrupulous industrialists who have found ways to register projects that would have been built anyway.
Incinerator plants are some of the largest sources of urban protests in both rich and poor countries, with people living near them, or downwind of them, concerned over cancers and other illnesses. These concerns are strongly denied by incinerator and city authorities who have invested billions of dollars in new plants.
John Vidal guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 August 2010 12.46 BST
The waste-pickers who scour the world's rubbish dumps and daily recycle thousands of tonnes of metal, paper and plastics are up in arms against the UN, which they claim is forcing them out of work and increasing climate change emissions.
Their complaint, heard yesterday in Bonn where UN global climate change talks have resumed, is that the clean development mechanism (CDM), an ambitious climate finance scheme designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, has led to dozens of giant waste-to-energy incinerators being built to burn municipal rubbish, as well as hundreds of new landfill schemes designed to collect methane gas.
"Waste-pickers, who are some of the poorest people on earth, recover recyclable materials. They are invisible entrepreneurs on the frontline of climate change, earning a living from recovery and recycling, reducing demand for natural resources," says Neil Tangri, director of Gaia, an alliance of 500 anti-incinerator groups in 80 countries.
"But they are being undermined by CDM projects, which deny them entry to dumps. This is leading to further stress and hardship for some of the poorest people in the world and is increasing emissions," he said.
Waste-pickers handle much of the growing mountains of rubbish in developing countries. Nearly 60% of all Delhi's waste, for example, is recycled by an army of tens of thousands of pickers who scavenge for recyclable materials on the city's dumps.
"These workers are providing a public service – for free. Building incinerators robs the poorest of the poor," said Bharati Chaturvedi, director of Indian NGO Chintan which works with waste-pickers and has been opposing a giant incinerator being built in Delhi with CDM money.
Yesterday Gaia called for the CDM to stop approving incinerator waste to energy projects and to start investing climate funds in the informal recycling sector. This, he said, would increase employment and labour conditions while dramatically reducing emissions.
Gaia also argues that the UN's methodology for assessing whether projects should be granted CDM credits does not take into account the emissions saved by recycling.
Recycling and composting, it says, are nearly 25 times more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than waste-to-energy incinerators.
"CDM funding for incineration and landfills represents a lost opportunity to reduce pollution and help improve the welfare of some of the poorest people on earth. This funding incentivises the destruction of valuable resources that would otherwise have been recovered with significant climate benefits."
But a spokeswoman for the CDM said today that waste-to-energy incinerators saved emissions and provided new employment. "These projects would not have taken place without the CDM".
But she said that the CDM would welcome groups of waste-pickers who wanted to apply for UN climate credits. "If they can show, with the correct methodology, that they are saving emissions, they would be eligible, too," she said.
The CDM, set up in 2001, allows rich countries to offset their emissions by investing in projects that reduce emissions in poor countries. In nearly 10 years' operation it claims to have reduced emissions significantly worldwide but has been accused of allowing fraud by unscrupulous industrialists who have found ways to register projects that would have been built anyway.
Incinerator plants are some of the largest sources of urban protests in both rich and poor countries, with people living near them, or downwind of them, concerned over cancers and other illnesses. These concerns are strongly denied by incinerator and city authorities who have invested billions of dollars in new plants.
Is it time to retire the term 'global warming'?
As its 35th 'birthday' approaches, is it now time to drop the politically charged and scientifically limited term 'global warming' for something else?
Anniversaries are always a fairly arbitrary (yet media friendly) reason for discussing any subject. But given the fact that some people, such as the folk at RealClimate, are already "celebrating" the 35th anniversary of the coining of the term "global warming", which is marked this Sunday, it seems as good a time as any to assess whether the term is still fit for purpose.
Names are important (just witness the "sceptic" vs "denier" hoo-ha), so it does seem a valid question to ask. I strongly doubt whether Wally Broecker realised that when his 1975 Science paper was titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" he knew that the term would go on to gain such international traction.
I doubt, therefore, that he gave it much thought whether it would withstand the rigours of intense scrutiny and debate that it would attract over the coming decades. (Some of the comments beneath the RealClimate piece do note that other earlier papers used the term "global warming trend", such as this one from 1961.)
The term is still near-universally used in the US, whereas "climate change" is more commonly used here in the UK. I'm not too sure why this should be the case (reader thoughts most welcome, but it seems likely that James Hansen's use of the term "global warming" during his famous 1988 testimony to the Senate influenced the US media, and perhaps Margaret Thatcher's use of 'climate change' in her famous 1989 speech did the same here). But the two terms are largely interchangeable in common discussion, even though climate scientists will rightly argue there are subtle, but important distinctions.
One often-heard criticism is that "climate change" was invented by "warmists" to hide a perceived inconvenient truth that global temperatures aren't actually warming. In other words, "climate change" is a clever sleight of hand that acts as a catch-all for a bevy of climactic phenomena. This ignores the inconvenient truth that the term "climate change" actually pre-dates "global warming". After all, the full title of Broecker's paper is "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
There's a nicely turned history of the two terms' usage here on the Nasa website written by Erik Conway, a historian at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. It includes a paragraph on how, in the 1970s, the term "inadvertent climate modification" was common parlance. Thankfully, this was abandoned in 1979 when the National Academy of Science published its first decisive study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate and chose to adopt the terms we still use today:
In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney [MIT's Jule Charney, the report's chairman] adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change." Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used.
There have been some subtle tweaks made over the years, though. For example, on the blogosphere in particular, you will often see "AGW" used as shorthand, which adds the all-important clarifying prefix "Anthropogenic" to Global Warming.
There are also some prominent voices in the climate debate who do not particularly like the terms "global warming" or "climate change" because they don't exude the urgency and reality of the subject they describe. For example, James Lovelock prefers the term "global heating", whereas George Monbiot has argued that the term "climate breakdown" is a more accurate description.
Equally, on the other side of the fence, there are those who dismissively label the subject – or, rather, what they see as the mainstream reaction to the subject - as the "climate con", "climate hoax", "climate alarmism" or "climatism".
Personally, I've never much taken to the term "global warming" (perhaps, it's my British roots, or that, yes, it seems too narrow in its scope) so I'm happy to stick with "climate change". I think we've reached a point now when we all know what we are talking about, even though the world will always be populated by the predictable pedants who love to crow that "the climate has always changed" when they know full well that what is being discussed is anthropogenic climate change. But, more importantly, to change the name now to something entirely new would only feed those conspiratorial minds that believe "climate change" is being intentionally used in some quarters in order to usurp "global warming", in the way a corporation might undergo a rebranding to help dissociate itself from a previous mishap.
But what are you thoughts - which term do you prefer? Or perhaps you have a brand new moniker you wish to introduce to the world? And does anyone know when the term 'climate change' first emerged?
Anniversaries are always a fairly arbitrary (yet media friendly) reason for discussing any subject. But given the fact that some people, such as the folk at RealClimate, are already "celebrating" the 35th anniversary of the coining of the term "global warming", which is marked this Sunday, it seems as good a time as any to assess whether the term is still fit for purpose.
Names are important (just witness the "sceptic" vs "denier" hoo-ha), so it does seem a valid question to ask. I strongly doubt whether Wally Broecker realised that when his 1975 Science paper was titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" he knew that the term would go on to gain such international traction.
I doubt, therefore, that he gave it much thought whether it would withstand the rigours of intense scrutiny and debate that it would attract over the coming decades. (Some of the comments beneath the RealClimate piece do note that other earlier papers used the term "global warming trend", such as this one from 1961.)
The term is still near-universally used in the US, whereas "climate change" is more commonly used here in the UK. I'm not too sure why this should be the case (reader thoughts most welcome, but it seems likely that James Hansen's use of the term "global warming" during his famous 1988 testimony to the Senate influenced the US media, and perhaps Margaret Thatcher's use of 'climate change' in her famous 1989 speech did the same here). But the two terms are largely interchangeable in common discussion, even though climate scientists will rightly argue there are subtle, but important distinctions.
One often-heard criticism is that "climate change" was invented by "warmists" to hide a perceived inconvenient truth that global temperatures aren't actually warming. In other words, "climate change" is a clever sleight of hand that acts as a catch-all for a bevy of climactic phenomena. This ignores the inconvenient truth that the term "climate change" actually pre-dates "global warming". After all, the full title of Broecker's paper is "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
There's a nicely turned history of the two terms' usage here on the Nasa website written by Erik Conway, a historian at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. It includes a paragraph on how, in the 1970s, the term "inadvertent climate modification" was common parlance. Thankfully, this was abandoned in 1979 when the National Academy of Science published its first decisive study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate and chose to adopt the terms we still use today:
In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney [MIT's Jule Charney, the report's chairman] adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change." Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used.
There have been some subtle tweaks made over the years, though. For example, on the blogosphere in particular, you will often see "AGW" used as shorthand, which adds the all-important clarifying prefix "Anthropogenic" to Global Warming.
There are also some prominent voices in the climate debate who do not particularly like the terms "global warming" or "climate change" because they don't exude the urgency and reality of the subject they describe. For example, James Lovelock prefers the term "global heating", whereas George Monbiot has argued that the term "climate breakdown" is a more accurate description.
Equally, on the other side of the fence, there are those who dismissively label the subject – or, rather, what they see as the mainstream reaction to the subject - as the "climate con", "climate hoax", "climate alarmism" or "climatism".
Personally, I've never much taken to the term "global warming" (perhaps, it's my British roots, or that, yes, it seems too narrow in its scope) so I'm happy to stick with "climate change". I think we've reached a point now when we all know what we are talking about, even though the world will always be populated by the predictable pedants who love to crow that "the climate has always changed" when they know full well that what is being discussed is anthropogenic climate change. But, more importantly, to change the name now to something entirely new would only feed those conspiratorial minds that believe "climate change" is being intentionally used in some quarters in order to usurp "global warming", in the way a corporation might undergo a rebranding to help dissociate itself from a previous mishap.
But what are you thoughts - which term do you prefer? Or perhaps you have a brand new moniker you wish to introduce to the world? And does anyone know when the term 'climate change' first emerged?