Picking Green Tech's Winners and Losers

Stanford Social Innovation Review.

"The challenge is not in changing consumer behavior, but in changing the job that consumers are trying to accomplish."

Read More >> << Read Less

NETG Movie Night: Gasland

This Thursday, February 3 at 5:30 pm in Cook Hall room 2058, NETG will be showing Gasland. Pizza will be served: RSVP

Gasland documents the watershed impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Natural gas is a clean-burning and low-carbon alternative to coal, but like any energy resource, it presents a unique set of environmental challenges. Please join us to learn one filmmaker's perspective on this important issue:

"The largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in history has swept across the United States. The Halliburton-developed drilling technology of 'fracking' or hydraulic fracturing has unlocked a 'Saudia Arabia of natural gas' just beneath us. But is fracking safe? When filmmaker Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for drilling, he embarks on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of secrets, lies and contamination. A recently drilled nearby Pennsylvania town reports that residents are able to light their drinking water on fire. This is just one of the many absurd and astonishing revelations of a new country called GASLAND. Part verite travelogue, part expose, part mystery, part bluegrass banjo meltdown, part showdown."

We hope you can come and share your expertise and opinions.

Read More >> << Read Less

Cancun Conclusions

In Cancun, climate negotiators have agreed to some small and non-binding measures. A mitigation fund will begin providing aid to developing nations. Pacific Island nations will receive resources to battle erosion and salt-water intrusion into their drinking water (3 mm/yr adds up quickly when you live on a coral lagoon). The meeting also established a standard for reporting emissions, although there is no legal pact or enforcement for emissions cuts. Still, following the disaster of Copenhagen, any good news is welcome. The group will readjourn in Durban in December 2011.

NY Times Report

Read More >> << Read Less

Global Temperatures and American Skepticism on the Rise

American belief in global warming is declining. A recent poll by Pew Research shows that just 34% of Americans see solid evidence of anthropogenic warming, down from 50% in 2006. Opinions are largely divided along party lines. Only 16% of Republicans believe in anthropogenic warming.

Much of this skepticism reflects a belief that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. In fact, the IPCC, a panel of the world’s leading climate scientists, found warming to be unequivocal and declared that it was highly probable that humans were responsible. Furthermore, they demonstrated that warming poses a serious risk to standards of living around the world. The science is certainly complex, but error bars should not translate to “erroneous.”

Has scientific illiteracy and media controversy eroded our ability to think critically and act positively? Has the fossil fuel lobby succeeded in its PR campaign? Do these numbers correlate with religious dogma and place the argument outside of the scientific discourse?

Green Tech and our fellow human beings would benefit significantly from a system of inclusive environmental accounting, such as cap-and-trade. A basic prerequisite for climate legislation is public education. Please join the conversation on the new NETG facebook page and everywhere.

Pew Report...

Read More >> << Read Less

Carbon Hunters in the Brazilian Amazon

"A middleman will sell it to a mill for $1,000," one agent says about the price of one tree. In other words, a tree worth $1 on the carbon market could be worth a thousand times that to an illegal sawmill. Reversing these economics, the UN estimates, will take an immediate global investment of $25 billion. But who will pay for it? And to whom?"

Follow this link to watch a 20-minute documentary about the new carbon market and how it affects the Amazon and its people. It's a truly fascinating look at how the new and old carbon economies intersect, and may change the way you think about carbon offsets based on land conservation.

Read More >> << Read Less

Coal: A Bridge to the Future?

Things haven't been easy for the coal industry these last few weeks. Clearly on the defensive in the wake of the recent mining tragedy in West Virginia and concerned about the comprehensive climate bill set to be unveiled later this month, industry executives recently gathered in Washington in an attempt to solidify the role of coal amid an increasingly diverse U.S. energy portfolio.

Testifying in front of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming last Wednesday were executives from the nation's top three coal producers and the President of the Ohio Coal Association. Throughout the mornings proceedings they addressed topics including climate change science, environmental concerns, and mining safety.

Chairman Markey (D-Mass.) set the stage for the hearing, asking the panel "whether the coal industry and coal-burning utilities will embrace innovation or stand pat and fight change," alluding to their opposition of the emissions regulations imposed by the Waxman-Markey bill, which was passed by the House last June. He suggested their resistance to emissions standards is akin to the automobile industry's aversion to fuel economy standards that ultimately resulted in hefty government bailouts for two of the three major American automakers.

When asked by Markey whether they agreed with Don Blankenship, the outspoken CEO of Massey energy who claimed "Global warming is a hoax and a Ponzi scheme," members of the panel acknowledge climate change was an issue that needs to be addressed. However, only one coal chief, Preston Chiaro on behalf of Rio Tinto, acknowledged the that man-made emissions are affecting the climate.

Other industry heads were less certain about the human effects on climate change. Among them was Gregory Boyce, President and Chief Executive Officer for Peabody Energy Corporation, who recommended to "leave the scientific discussion to the scientists." His company recently petitioned the U.S Court of Appeals to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency endangerment finding, which paved the way to allow regulation of carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Boyce emphasized that Peabody will support the "right kind of legislation" that allows for sufficient carbon capture and storage (CCS) development timelines along with federal responsibility for stowing CO2. These remarks were echoed by the other executives, including Mike Carey, President of the Ohio Coal Association. He asserted that "the legislation requires emissions reductions starting in 2012 and further incorporates restrictive performance standards on coal-fired power plants starting in 2020,completely ignoring what developers of CCS technology are saying: that CCS is at least 15-20 years away from true commercial deployment." Despite the provision of up to $60 billion for CCS research and development in the Waxman-Markey bill, it's clear that the coal industry is worried about putting a price on emissions.

And some committee members were not so happy with the coal industry's aversion to emissions standards. After Carey claimed there was a "legislative war on coal," Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) responded by saying "if it's a war, it's a war on our grandkids" in reference to the health and environmental impacts of coal without carbon sequestration.

Last year there were no new coal plants that broke ground and, as a result, the industry is beginning to feel the growth of other energy producers. In particular, they took aim at natural gas, stating the uncertainty of its reserves while expressing concern that sudden fuel switching may stall necessary CCS development. After Carey suggested the Waxman-Markey bill showed favoritism to the natural gas industry, he was quickly reprimanded by Markey who vehemently replied "you're just wrong."

But coal continues to provide a significant portion of the nation's electricity needs, amounting to approximately 44 percent of the total consumed in 2009. The domination of the industry has unfortunately led to a perceived invincibility that is best summed up by one of Boyce's remarks: "I have often heard coal called a 'bridge to the future.' To this, I say: Coal is the future."

Read More >> << Read Less

Chicago Climate Action Plan (CCAP)

Ever wonder what efforts the City of Chicago is taking to curb climate change and promote sustainability? Well look no further than the CCAP.

About a month ago Suzanne Malec-McKenna, the Commissioner for the Chicago Climate Action Plan, gave a great talk at Norris providing a synopsis of Chicago's efforts with regards to sustainability. Launched in September 2008 the CCAP outlines the city’s roadmap for addressing global climate change at the local level and proposes strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to changes already underway. The City of Chicago is currently implementing over 40 different action items that fall into five broad categories: Energy Efficient Buildings, Clean & Renewable Energy Sources, Improved Transportation Options, Reduced Waste & Industrial Pollution, and Adaptation. For more information about the CCAP and all their efforts and progress, please check out their website at www.chicagoclimateaction.org.

For even more information, there is a talk TOMORROW night, March 30th, in downtown Chicago, that will provide an update on the progress of the Action Plan. Check out the NETG calendar for details and a synopsis!

Read More >> << Read Less

A refreshing dose of honesty

A junior senator from Washington state, Maria Cantwell, is is pushing a simpler, more voter-friendly version of cap-and-trade, called “cap-and-dividend.”

Although, like in cap-and-trade, carbon credits are auctioned off and traded, which results in an increase in cost for products made with energy (which is to say, just about everything), under this interesting twist on the old idea, American taxpayers are issued payments from the government as compensation. To quote this article in the Economist, which calls the idea “honest” for its transparency and simplicity (the bill is a mere 40 pages long), “To discourage the use of dirty energy, [the bill] says, it has to be more expensive. To make up for that, here’s a thousand bucks.” This way there is an inherent consumer-driven incentive to purchase less energy-intensive goods, which would translate to an incentive to produce them on the industrial scale. Here is a link to Senator Cantwell's page in which The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act is introduced.

Read More >> << Read Less

'As the World Burns': The Politics Of Climate Change

Check out this 20-minute discussion on NPR's `Fresh Air' with journalist Jeff Goodell, as he discusses his article for Rolling Stone, "As the World Burns: How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming"

Read More >> << Read Less

Candidate Forum 2010

Citizens for a Greener Evanston asked candidates for the 18th legislative district of the Illinois House of Representatives (election to be held next Tuesday, February 2nd) to respond to the following three energy- and sustainability-related questions:


1. What bills are currently pending in the state legislature that would support significant improvements in energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings and would increase the production of renewable energy in Illinois in a major way?

2. How would you as state representative work to provide assistance to Evanston in its efforts to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in our community?

3. Indicate how your past work as advocates for various programs bears on the goal of achieving sustainability in Evanston.

Follow the title link of this post to read their responses.

Read More >> << Read Less

Christopher Steiner: $20 Per Gallon gasoline

Forbes magazine senior staff writer and Evanston resident Christopher Steiner addressed Citizens for a Greener Evanston at the Fireside Grill tonight to discuss his new book “$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better.” The main message of the talk (and, I assume, the book) was similar to that of a number of other pundits addressing the same issue: peak oil is coming, and it will change how we do everything.

His prognosis of how we’ll deal with high energy prices appears to be a bit rosier than those of some of his contemporaries (e.g. James Howard Kunstler, Matt Simmons), due to his belief that energy price increases will be gradual enough for us to respond to in an organized and constructive way. In his own words, “…many people's lives… will be improved across a panoply of facets. We will get more exercise, breathe fewer toxins, eat better food, and make a smaller impact on our earth. Giant businesses will rise as entrepreneurs' intrepid minds elegantly solve our society's mounting challenges.”

In Mr. Steiner’s view, Evanston is well positioned for these changes due to our proximity to a major economic center, a well-developed and well-used mass transit system, mixed use zoning, and the possibility of a burgeoning high-speed rail system, of which Chicago would likely be a hub. He noted the beginnings of a trend toward a devaluation of auto-dependant development (far-flung suburbs) relative to areas with human-scale transportation options (city centers and neighborhoods). This, I believe, raises concerns about displacement of low-income residents due to gentrification as cities become fashionable places to live again. He advocates the implementation of an increased federal gasoline tax, pegged, for example, to inflation, at a level high enough to affect behavioral change. The logic, he claims, is that since we will be soon enough paying high prices for gasoline from foreign shores due to market forces, we may as well do so voluntarily today and retain some of the money domestically in our government coffers. This way the money could be put to good use at home, perhaps in making infrastructure changes to anticipate the coming paradigm shift.

Among the attendees at tonight’s event was Jeff Smith, an NU alum and Evanston-area resident, who is an independent Democratic candidate for state representative from the 18th Representative District of the Illinois General Assembly (the election is next Tuesday, February 2nd). He has a strong platform related to energy and environmental issues, which may be of interest.

Read More >> << Read Less

Letting Nature levy taxes

This interesting idea ties the rate of carbon taxation to the temperature of the troposphere: if the Earth continues warming, the tax increases.

If global warming is not really happening, and the warming trend proves to be a temporary fluctuation unrelated to man-made carbon emissions, then the tax would decrease or disappear. This approach has appeal in that the tax is self-correcting, but there are some reasons to proceed with caution as well, not the least of which is the politicization of scientific research. Another benefit I can imagine is that we would find out rather quickly "what the market believes" is really happening, as investments should favor either companies that are planning for a low-carbon future, or companies that are betting on a fossil-based model.

Read More >> << Read Less

NREL's State of the State report

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has released a detailed report looking into the status of each US state's renewable energies portfolio. Illinois tends to place low when looking at total renewables capacity, but fares much better when considering growth.

Read More >> << Read Less

National clean energy proposals: Part II

In my previous blog I outlined Google’s Clean Energy 2030 proposal for reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy production in the US. As promised, I have gone through the proposal in detail and now offer my thoughts on what I like and dislike about it. As always, these issues are open to debate, and I encourage everyone to get involved, or at least to educate themselves on the subject. I will try to provide links for external sources of information where applicable. My comments are as follows, in no particular order:

• I like that the renewable energy goals are being achieved through three main areas: wind, solar, and geothermal. Nathan Lewis at the California Institute of Technology outlines the total energy that can be potentially captured from natural resources in a series of talks and papers. Of these, wind, solar, and geothermal comprise the three largest, although solar by far is greater than the other two. With that in mind, I think the goal with respect to wind is reasonable in that the technology is currently close to maturity and is cost effective. In my opinion however, the geothermal goals seem a bit inflated considering the level of investment that will be needed for widespread implementation of enhanced geothermal systems. Globally speaking, I think solar (thermal and photovoltaic) will be the best solution, but utilizing all of our mix of resources for a near-term national solution is advisable.


• Transmission capacity will certainly need to be expanded in order to support the increased production from remote and distributed sources, as noted in the proposal. However, the proposal should also take into account transmission efficiency. This is a major area for improvement, as transmission losses make up a large part of the 68% of electricity produced that is wasted, according to 2008 numbers. So while end-use electrical efficiency can be improved through technologies such as Google’s PowerMeter, we should also focus on smart-grid technologies and advancements in superconductors for increased supply efficiency. Perhaps this area is included in the efficiency measures taken to produce flat electricity demand?
  


• I agree that the personal vehicle sector will be the easiest upon which to impart change, but we shouldn’t forget the other 40% of the transportation sector where efficiency improvements can, and are being made. GE has made strides in locomotive efficiency, while large-scale implementation of hybrid trucks, fuel cell buses, and efficient passenger planes are all feasible within the next 20 years.


• I agree that the private sector will/should provide much of the funding for these initiatives, in addition to that which the government contributes. More than anything, the role of the government is most valuable in instilling an attitude with the public that these changes are necessary, and with that said, I think so far the Obama administration has done a good job showing that energy policy is a priority. This includes funding in all levels of R&D, including basic sciences.


• The proposal does not take into account the natural behavioral phenomenon I like to call “guilt-free purchasing” – the idea that if something is environmentally cleaner and/or more energy efficient, people may naturally buy more of it compared to their normal purchases. For example, if a futuristic newly established business knows that LED lights are more efficient, and that the electricity they are using comes from mostly renewable energy, they may install twice as many lights as are necessary to illuminate their showroom. In this sense, publicly speaking, if there is an idea that the electricity we use is clean, people will tend to use more of it, and care less about efficiency. The point I am making is that it is easy to push better efficiency when there are multiple drivers in addition to just cost, i.e. CO2 emissions from electricity generation. As a result, the efficiency measures in the proposal that keep demand constant over the next 20 years are based on today’s urgency. If and when the nation’s electricity is mostly from renewable energy, these efficiency standards will be hard to maintain, especially in a world where economic prosperity and energy consumption are so closely tied. The trouble with this notion is that it is very difficult to quantify. My comment then is that one must be cognizant of this phenomenon and perhaps include a time-dependent variable in the electricity demand calculations that account for this.


• I like the fuel efficiency standard of 45mpg by 2030, although from a technology standpoint I think it can go a bit higher, considering that Europe has set the same standards for 3 years from now. Obviously this is a behavior issue though, as Americans like large inefficient cars. Perhaps that will change in the next 20 years though, where we will find we can eclipse this mark.


• In relation to the above comment, it is important to recognize that when discussing gasoline versus electric cars, fuel savings is not equivalent to CO2 savings. While the proposal takes into account the increased electricity demand, the opportunity cost of gasoline cars compared to electric vehicles must include the CO2 released in the production of the electricity used in the vehicle. Using current figures, I recently wrote a blog in which I calculated that electric vehicles emit 2/3 less CO2 when traveling the same distance as the average internal combustion car. While this would certainly be reduced even more as coal and gas electricity generation is replaced by renewable resources, this CO2 contribution needs to be included in the personal vehicle numbers that the proposal quotes.


• Clean Energy 2030 deserves a lot of credit for recognizing the potential of a program like cash for clunkers (they reference this article in their proposal) well before it was readily accepted and implemented. Accelerated replacement of inefficient vehicles provides immediate carbon emission savings, and establishes a standard for future car generations. The total fuel and carbon savings from this program will perhaps be the subject of another blog…
  


• I agree with the limited role that biofuels are given. I know I am probably angering a whole community of scientists with that statement, but I am open to debate on the subject. In my opinion there are three main reasons I do not support biofuels, at the moment. Firstly, I don’t believe that biofuels are truly renewable. While they in theory have a zero net carbon cycle, this is only true if the biomass is replanted, re-grown, or re-produced in an equal manner. But it is not a closed cycle. The process requires land (for the scale of production required), and land is a limited resource that is used for other products and other means that are just as, if not more important, as outlined in this Science article, which was also covered in The New York Times. The process also requires extreme amounts of water, which may be a concern in coming ages. Secondly, the complete energy efficiency of the cycle, depending on the type of biomass, remains relatively low. Thirdly, there just isn’t enough biomass in the quantities needed in order to significantly impact the energy demand of the world. Despite that, there will be, and are niche areas where biomass serves as a great solution, especially where the added advantages of having a liquid fuel can be utilized. Plenty of information on the basics of biofuels can be found here.


• I am guessing that the intermittency cost of 20$/MWh is not arbitrary, so I would be curious to find out from what source it is taken. Intermittency is and will be a key issue as more solar and wind generation is added to the grid. However, there is a possible solution. While I may be accused of being biased because my background is in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), SOFCs offer a unique solution in that they can be run in reverse as electrolysis cells (SOECs). This dual nature allows for generation of electricity from hydrogen and hydrocarbon fuels, but also storage of electricity in the form of these same fuels. Hence, they can be used for power leveling where excess electricity is converted to fuel to be used later when demand exceeds production. SOFCs are also a distributed energy solution, where residential houses, commercial buildings, and utility companies can each have their own fuel storage and electricity generation systems. The full cycle efficiency of electricity-fuel-electricity of an SOFC/EC is upwards of 70%, which approaches the cycle efficiency of a battery, with the added benefit of having unlimited energy storage. While SOFCs are currently not cost effective, ongoing research can certainly meet efficiency and cost goals by 2030, which should greatly reduce the 20$/MWh intermittency value.


• I agree with the doubts regarding the viability of carbon capture as a solution to CO2 emissions. This is a very expensive technology in today’s form, and has not been proven effective in large scale. Additionally, the problem remains as to where and how one would be able to store all this carbon and CO2. I reference again Nathan Lewis’ talk as a great outline for the concerns regarding this technology.
  


• It should not go unmentioned that there are other cost savings to creating a renewable energy economy that are less tangible, yet just as important. Among these are reduced defense spending to fund wars as a result of needed oil imports (“petrodictatorships”, as coined by Thomas Friedman in “Hot, Flat, and Crowded”), cleaner environments, healthier air, and hopefully, less costs resulting from reduced climate change.


• I am a strong believer that any and all technologies that offer viable solutions to our current carbon emissions problems should be implemented in one form or another. While it is my opinion that solar power will be the sole solution to the world’s energy problems in the distant future, a suite of near-term solutions is the most practical and cost-effective means for achieving this goal. With that said, it is important to recognize that efficiency is not a solution in and of itself to our energy problems. While efficiency measures can produce incredible cost and carbon savings, as recently outlined by a team at McKinsey, maintaining electricity demand at current levels over the next 20 years, the goal of Clean Energy 2030, would be just as detrimental without significant development of renewable energy sources. Efficiency measures with today’s energy portfolio only delay the problem. But efficiency measures enhance the solution when renewable sources are implemented.


• Lastly, the financial model is very sensitive to the price of gasoline, as witnessed by the change that occurred when the value was reduced from $4 to $3. It would be nice to see how sensitive the model is to gasoline prices in general, as well as any other variables that are subject to change. With that in mind, I think the best way to present the data is in a “best case - worst case” scenario, where a range of possible outcomes is given. Or at least it could be determined at what price of gasoline the plan breaks even. This would give the reader some insight into how robust the proposal is with respect to natural variables.

In conclusion, I think that Clean Energy 2030 is a great source for understanding the possible solutions for reducing our carbon emissions and establishing a renewable energy portfolio. Whether you agree with the ideas and the financials or not, I hope that we can all agree that a solution in general is needed to curb our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Read More >> << Read Less

National clean energy proposals: the private sector is lending a hand

Those interested in the science, economics, and policy of clean energy initiatives do not have far to look these days. Besides the government’s Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which maps out a plan for investment in clean energy technologies, many private sector institutions are getting their feet wet as well. And I don’t mean with investments alone. Many institutions are taking the time to make internal company policies as well as external proposals for the United States as a whole with regards to reducing our carbon footprint.

One notable participant, and leader in my opinion, is Google, whose “Clean Energy 2030” proposal for reducing US dependence on fossil fuel was first presented in October of 2008. The proposal is organized to address three main areas of action: energy efficiency, renewable (carbon-free) electricity, and personal vehicles. By addressing these areas in combination, their analysis concludes that by the year 2030 the following reductions can be made from the predicted EIA baseline numbers: fossil fuel-based electricity down 88%, vehicle oil consumption down 44%, and overall US CO2 emissions down 49%.

Google is unique in that they have used their resources to not only hire staff to take the time to develop such proposals, but they also have started to implement these solutions within Google and throughout the community. Through the creation of google.org, they have committed to “address some of the world’s most urgent problems.” Under this umbrella falls such clean energy initiatives as RE<C (renewable energy costs less than coal), RechargeIT (plug-in hybrid vehicle expansion, including solar-powered recharging stations), and Google PowerMeter (smart energy monitoring). Each of these initiatives represents part of the solutions that were mapped out in Clean Energy 2030.

One of Google’s plug-in hybrid vehicles getting recharged as part of their RechargeIT initiative.

I write about these things not as a commercial for Google, but to use them as an example of what I think is an important responsibility of the private sector: the involvement of companies beyond their own internal interests. Additionally, I think it is important for people to think about these solutions, whether you agree with them or not. Certainly no proposal will be 100% accurate, nor will everyone agree with it. But debate about these issues and getting the public involved are keys to moving forward and finding the right solutions. Besides the policy, however, it is the science, technology, and innovation that I hope people find most fascinating. It has been a long time since such a universal and interdisciplinary problem has been presented to the scientific community.

So it is my proposal to you, the reader, that you read Clean Energy 2030, and/or other proposals like it, and comment on what you liked, and what you disagreed with. I too will be following up with another blog on my specific thoughts as well. Beyond that, if you’re just looking for some background on the subject, the proposal outlines well the major areas of scientific research that will be so important to our society in helping us solve our energy problems.

Read More >> << Read Less

One Book One Northwestern chooses Thomas Friedman’s “Hot, Flat, and Crowded.”

Each year Northwestern hosts a campus-wide reading program called One Book One Northwestern (OBON). The purpose of the program is to promote a common discussion across the Northwestern community regarding the topics addressed within the chosen book. Each incoming freshman is provided with a complimentary copy of the book. This year, the Initiative for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern (ISEN) was chosen to select the book and host the event. The book for this year is Thomas Friedman’s “Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America.”

The book does an excellent job of mapping out the reasons why energy technology, especially within the United States, is of the utmost importance. I highly suggest you read it and get involved in the discussion, whether you agree with his assessments and solutions or not. As part of OBON, a number of people including myself are facilitating the discussion through a blog on their website that was launched last week. So if you have the time and resources, pick up the book at your local book store and join the comments on the blog. I can’t think of a timelier and more important book in an age where there is so much opportunity for the US to lead the ever more necessary green revolution.

Read More >> << Read Less

China Offers Position for Copenhagen

In preparation for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen later this year, the National Planning and Reform Commission of China recently released its position paper.

A short AP article summarizes the paper and highlights the following points about China's stance on emissions:

• No stated emissions targets for China or other developing countries.


• Technology transfers and other support are critical for success.


• Rich countries should provide at least 0.5-1% of their annual GDP to help developing countries upgrade technology, cut emissions and adapt to the consequences of climate change.


• While visiting Prague this week, Premier Wen Jiabao shrugged off pressure from the European Union for China to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, though he backed EU efforts to reach a new global climate change accord to replace the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Despite its rapid growth and construction of coal-fired plants, China has taken a number of bold steps that demonstrate an increasing commitment to lowering emissions. See this recent article by the New York Times for evidence of their intention to limit increasing emissions. Of particular note is a quote by Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building a plant in Tianjin. “We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.” His company's commitment to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants is a daring statement but represents a growing movement in China that recognizes the need for action. How this plays out at next month's meeting of delegates in Bonn, Germany should be interesting to watch.

Read More >> << Read Less

Fuel economy and coal segments

The Jim Lehrer news hour from today's broadcast has 2 fairly in-depth segments on president Obama's fuel economy announcement, including a sometimes-tense discussion with both the president of the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers and also the founder of the Safe Climate Campaign, an environmental advocacy group. Also, the video includes a look at coal in this country taking Georgia as an example. Clean coal (sequestration) is discussed.

Read More >> << Read Less

New Fuel Economy Standards

Earlier today, President Obama announced a proposed new policy for stricter fuel economy that moves beyond existing CAFE standards. Here is a quick breakdown of the facts:

• 5% increases in efficiency from 2012-2016, culminating with an industry average of 35.5 mpg (30 mpg for light trucks) by 2016


• 1.8 billion barrels of oil preserved


• Projected reduction of 900 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions (the equivalent of 177 million fewer cars on the road)


• Policy embraced by ten major car companies and the UAW


• Matches California's target so states no longer need to apply for waivers to enforce stricter standards


• Increased costs of $1,300 per vehicle (expected to be offset by fuel cost savings)

Source: EPA, 2008

As a comparison, check out the graphic to the right, which plots historical data for fuel economy beginning in the year 1975. Despite rapid growth in the 1970s, this will be the first significant increase since that time. This, of course, neglects to acknowledge vehicle efficiency, which unlike fuel economy has steadily increased over the entire period since 1975. It's an important distinction and our obsession with powerful, oversized vehicles is part of the reason why we lag so far behind Europe in the race to better fuel economy. Is it too little too late? For more information, I encourage you to check out the full report on automotive technology and fuel economy trends at the EPA website.

See the entire transcript of the President's remarks here.

Read More >> << Read Less

Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet

This article under this provocative title (follow the link) has as its central argument something called the Kuznets curve. This is a plot of an environmental damage index versus affluence of a society. It is shaped like an upside-down U, meaning that it has a maximum- and for a level of affluence greater than that maximum the environmental damage done by a group begins to decrease. The reason for the shape of the curve is that over a certain level of affluence, people can begin to afford to clean up their act, and offer themselves clean air and drinking water, use carbon-light fuels (coal -> natural gas -> nuclear), and with their more efficient agricultural methods, allow re-forestation since fewer acres are under cultivation. Something like a conclusion is drawn that the best thing we can do for the environment and the atmosphere in particular is to keep our hands off the energy market and let it work its own magic.

My principal criticisms of this way of thinking are as follows:

-The experimental outcome of the American energy policy and the European one disagree with the policy-won't-work approach. Europeans, who have a similar standard of living to us, consume much less energy than we do per-capita, and per $GDP, because unlike us they made conscious and effective decisions about taxing energy in a way that discourage to a degree its overuse. This fact is a direct contradiction of the author's point that “Energy systems evolve with a particular logic, gradually, and they don’t suddenly morph into something different." In fact, France, of which he makes an example as being just past the maximum of a Kuznets curve, made a very deliberate choice a few decades ago to be less reliant on foreign energy. Their nuclear program represents a dramatic and sudden morphing of their energy system through government policy and not in any way from market forces. In a domestic example, wind energy now accounts for a large fraction of our newly built electricity production capacity- made possible by a federal credit to make it competitive with fossil energy. Another policy-driven decarburization the market doesn't yet support.

-The next step our energy system is supposedly poised to make to further decarburize requires technological developments- sometimes evolutionary, but just as often revolutionary. There, is in the latter cases, little market force driving the basic scientific research this requires- much of it is done in national labs or in university labs funded by government agencies (DOE, NSF). The rate of advancement depends to a large degree on availability of government funding, and who is in charge (and whether or not they are pushing for a "green revolution") makes an enormous difference, in contrast to the author's claim. To put it another way, to slide down the Kuznets curve toward a less harmful way of living, we need development of technologies that the market can not provide, because currently there is no market for them.

-There are plenty of externalities (environmental and otherwise) that I think the K-curve analysis neglects. Take for instance the example of reforestation due to more land-efficient agriculture. Sure, fewer acres are necessary, ok, and that's a good thing by this one measure. But how are the ecosystems in the Chesapeak bay doing, a thousand miles from the "environmentally friendly" low-acreage-per-bushel-of-corn farms that drain into it? Is there any bioactivity in the soil, or has it been chemically scorched with fertilizers and pesticides in the name of increased efficiency?

-Finally, I'll wager that the West is benefiting significantly from having priced ourselves out of the manufacturing game for many of our common every-day products. Our affluence coupled with globalization of product streams has resulted in a massive shift in manufacturing capacity from the West to Asia, and with that capacity went the emissions it produces. It is easy to pat ourselves on the back for cleaning up our air and water, but one result has been that some of the burden of that pollution has been transferred to China.

It's an interesting article, and does contain some lessons worth keeping in mind when crafting energy policy, but I think that the call to "Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet" is simplistic, and discourages necessary action.

Read More >> << Read Less