harabara.com

Cats Against Climate Change and Other Videos

2009-11-05T18:16:44Z

This is just one of the videos embedded in this article at The Guardian, which has only a few of the videos submitted to the 1 minute to save the world contest. If I had time I would watch them all. And vote for my favorite.

Cats Against Climate Change from Londonlime on Vimeo.

Using Atmosphere As Toilet? Please Deposit $50

2009-11-04T22:03:05Z

If you are emitting greenhouse gases you are proably imposing a cost on society in the range of $20 to $100 per ton of CO₂ equivalent, and possibly much more.

When researchers at the New York University School of Law sent a questionnaire to 289 economists who had published at least one article on climate change in a top-rated economics journal in the past 15 years they asked: "The global 'social cost of carbon' per metric ton—i.e. the net present value of the marginal impact over time caused by the emission today of one ton of carbon dioxide‐equivalent greenhouse gasses—is most likely: _____".

They got 84 answers. The median answer was $50 per ton. The mode was $50 per ton. The average was $107 per ton (discarding the two highest answers, which were twenty times higher than the next highest).

"Perhaps the response that best captures the uncertainty regarding the damages generated by greenhouse gas emission was: 'No one knows, including me.' " But the consensus among the respondents was that there clearly is a social cost, and it is likely in the range of $20-100 per ton.

So if you are emitting greenhouse gases by driving your car or operating your coal-fired power plant, there should be a box nearby where you should deposit $50-100 or so for each ton you pass, to be sent to those who suffer harm from those emissions. Or are you one of those who feels it is OK to use other people's space as your toilet?

German Chancellor Begs Congress on Climate Challenges

2009-11-04T17:07:05Z

German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel gave what may someday be remembered as one of the great speeches of our time before a joint session of Congress yesterday. Here is the relevant part:

Ladies and gentlemen,

the fact that global challenges can only be met by comprehensive international cooperation is also shown by a third great challenge of the 21st century, by a wall, so to speak, separating the present from the future. That wall prevents us from seeing the needs of future generations, it prevents us from taking the measures urgently needed to protect the very basis of our life and climate.

We can already see where this wasteful attitude towards our future leads: In the Arctic icebergs are melting, in Africa people are becoming refugees due to environmental damage, and global sea levels are rising. I am pleased that you in your work together with President Obama attach such significance to protecting our climate. For we all know: We have no time to lose! We need an agreement at the climate conference in Copenhagen in December. We have to agree on one objective – global warming must not exceed two degrees Celsius.

To achieve this we need the readiness of all nations to assume internationally binding obligations. We cannot afford failure with regard to achieving the climate protection objectives scientists tell us are crucial. That would not only be irresponsible from an ecological point of view, but would also be technologically short-sighted, for the development of new technologies in the energy sector offers major opportunities for growth and jobs in the future.

No doubt about it – in December the world will look to us, to Europe and America. It is true that there can be no agreement without China and India accepting obligations, but I am convinced that if we in Europe and America show that we are ready to accept binding obligations, we will also be able to persuade China and India to join in. And then, in Copenhagen, we will be able to tear down the wall between the present and the future – in the interests of our children and grandchildren and of sustainable development worldwide.

Most American new media didn't even cover the speech, which had unfortunate timing. Though close to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, this first Tuesday in November generated a lot of election news, which pushed the Bundeskanzlerin's remarks far off the front page.

What does Daylight Savings Time save? [A Classic Reposted]

2009-10-31T22:45:09Z

The United States is ending "daylight savings time" later than it used to this autumn, in accordance with the "Energy Policy Act of 2005" (pdf here; html here). Besides the $2.2 billion in direct spending this act handed out (estimated over its first 5 years by the Congressional Budget Office) and the $7.9 billion in tax breaks it authorized over the same period, Congress in its wisdom decided to do something about energy independence and global warming by adding an additional month of daylight savings time. Nearly every statement by a politician about this change included these words: "will save the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil a day." (See the 2005 Energy Conference Report pdf, or the press release of Congressman Fred Upton [R-Michigan], who introduced this provision). This figure comes from a study done by the Department of Transportation in the '70s. I can't find the original study, but it was quoted in testimony of then-acting deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy Linda Lawson before House Science Committee in 2001. Her testimony in part:

I want to note that these studies are over 25 years old and were limited in scope. Congress captured many of the benefits identified in our studies in the legislative changes to daylight saving time enacted in 1986. There have been dramatic changes in lifestyle and commerce since we completed our studies that raise serious questions about extrapolating conclusions from our studies into today’s world. . . . Let me now briefly summarize the technical findings regarding daylight saving time benefits. The studies are over twenty-five years old and have not been updated. Our 1975 study concluded that daylight saving time might result in electricity savings of 1 percent in March and April, equivalent to roughly 100,000 barrels of oil daily over the two months. These savings were calculated from Federal Power Commission data for only four daylight saving time transitions -- in the winter, spring and fall of the 1974 - 1975 experiment. Due to the limited data sample, the findings were judged "probable", rather than conclusive. Theoretical studies of home heating fuel consumption identified small savings due to daylight saving time. No potential increases in travel demand and gasoline use due to daylight savings time were identified at that time. The lack of actual data precluded an estimation of net daylight saving time energy savings. . . . Before making changes to daylight saving time, we urge the Congress to consider the costs and benefits of such changes. As I have noted, DOT’s studies are over 25 years old. New studies must consider impacts on uniformity, impacts on coordination of transportation and commerce, impacts on transportation safety, and net energy impacts. The studies must consider the impact of changes on electrical lighting use, heating energy use, air conditioning use, and transportation energy use, including the potential for increased travel demand resulting from more evening daylight and increased gasoline use.

But apparently Congress focused on the "equivalent of 100,000 barrels" and extended daylight savings time. Note that 100,000 barrels is 0.5% of daily petroleum consumption in the U.S. In fact saving electricity doesn't save much oil, since most electricity is generated with coal or natural gas. Daylight savings time can have no real impact on oil imports.

No Real Savings

More recent studies find very slight and uncertain savings, or none at all. Does Extending Daylight Saving Time Save Energy? Evidence From an Australian Experiment by Ryan Kellogg and Hendrik Wolff, January 2007:

Given the economic and environmental imperatives driving efforts to reduce energy consumption, policy-makers are considering extending Daylight Saving Time (DST). Doing so is widely believed to reduce electricity use. Our research challenges this belief, as well as the studies underlying it. We offer a new test of whether extending DST decreases energy consumption by evaluating an extension that occurred in the state of Victoria, Australia in 2000. Using half-hourly panel data on electricity consumption and a triple-difference treatment effect model, we show that, while extending DST does reduce electricity consumption in the evening, the increased demand in the morning cancels this benefit out. We statistically reject electricity savings of 1% or greater at a 1% significance level.

Electricity Savings From Early Daylight Saving Time by Adrienne Kandal, February 2007:

There is no clear evidence that electricity will be saved from the earlier start to daylight saving time on March 11, but the 7 p.m. peak load will probably drop on the order of 3% for the remainder of March, lowering capacity requirements. This could be negated by a new morning spike as it was in Australia in 2000, but that appears unlikely. In any event, capacity constraints usually do not occur in March and early November.

Moral:

Politicians want to be seen to be doing something about energy problems, but don't seem to care if their actions really help or not. If we want something done, we will have to do it ourselves.

[Full disclosure: This is a slightly-modified repost of a "classic" post of yore, but I figured anyone who read it back then has forgotten it, so why not use it again?]

Why The Horseless Carriage Will Never Catch On

2009-10-29T04:21:15Z

I recently came across a yellowed clipping, dating from around 1900, with the following information:

In spite of the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of such inventors as Herr Benz, it is quite impossible for the auto-mobile or "horseless carriage" to ever supplant horse-drawn vehicles as a major form of local or long-distance transport. The reason? Each vehicle has but a limited storage capacity for its fuel.

As a plaything for the rich, who may rattle around their estates or in towns, and can thus return to their stable to refill this "tank" at need, this may not be a problem. But imaging trying to go by auto-mobile from Philadelphia to Baltimore, a distance of more than 100 miles by the established turnpike. Would the vehicle be able to carry the weight of the required fuel, perhaps one or more barrels, as well as the conductor and mechanic? This is an obvious absurdity. By coach this is not a difficulty, as there are several stages at which horses can be rested, or even exchanged if in haste. And of course the railway makes the journey easy, obviating the need for any road machine.

Even if supplies of motor-spirit were to be stored at these post-houses (with, it must be said, great danger of fire, unavoidable odor, etc.) how would it be brought there? By wagon or railway, of course! Hay, grain, and grazing are universally available throughout the country, making such expensive and hazardous storage of motor-spirit completely unnecessary!

If mechanically driven transport is needed, railways have already been established and proven the ultimate in efficiency. If Mr. Astor wishes to "motor" in Boston, he would do best to load his auto-mobile on the train, and unload it at his destination. For it to get there under its own power would be quite impossible.

So though we may marvel at these fantastic vehicles as they clatter past, let us recognize them for what they are: a toy for the rich, not transportation for the populace.

People sure were dumb in those days! I guess this lack of refueling points didn't turn out to be a big problem after all. Of course recharging the batteries of electric vehicles is completely different, and forms an insurmountable barrier to their acceptance.

(Full disclosure: I made all this up.)

Good-bye to the Car?

2009-10-28T05:19:25Z

Teenagers' attitudes toward cars are changing in the U.S. Compare these two (made up) recordings of typical teenage interaction: "Hey! Let's all jump in Johnnie's car and go to the Malt Shop!" Vs. "tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tappety tap tap, tap, tap, tappety, tappety, tap, tap."

For an earlier generation car power was an important social distinction, useful transportation resource, tool for meeting members of the opposite sex, and vital gauge of a potential mate's quality. (Owning a car showed economic achievement and potential--someone who could maintain you in the style to which you would like to become accustomed--and if he can fix a car he can probably unstop a toilet or hang a shelf, also key husband qualifications.)

But has the place of the car for many of these purposes been usurped by the BlackBerry or the iPhone or some other possession? (True they can't take you to the malt shop, but maybe the communication that used to require a trip to the malt shop now takes place in other ways. And they don't have a private back seat . . . who knows what kids do about that these days?)

This item from The L.A. Times tells of a recent J.D. Power survey of online conversations. Shockingly, "Online discussions by teens indicate shifts in perceptions regarding the necessity of and desire to have cars." Ominously, "The negative perceptions of the automotive industry that teens and early careerists hold could have implications on future vehicle sales."

Full disclosure: I don't have a car. Most of my kids don't have cars. My wife has a car but it is broken. My parents have two cars.

Green My Palm: Sustainable or Not?

2009-10-26T21:38:45Z

A recent item on Marks & Spenser's project to put labels on its products indicating "supports the production of sustainable palm oil", without actually using sustainably produced palm oil, raised some questions here at HaraBara Centre.

There is a palm-oil-industry-developed program called the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which has developed criteria under which palm oil production can be called "sustainable". (I assume the reader knows about the enormous ecological, climate and community damage done by much palm oil production that replaces tropical forest.) Only a tiny fraction of palm oil production is so certified, and there are many questions about the rigor and validity of the certification system itself.

If a palm oil user like Marks & Spenser wants to buy RSPO-certified palm oil from plantations that are managed sustainably there are very significant costs from maintaining the identity of that oil between the plantation and the M&S factory. Palm oil is produced, processed, stored, shipped and purchased as a bulk commodity, and the buyer cannot know where any particular bit of oil came from unless someone creates an expensive "identity preserved" handling chain.

The reason M&S uses palm oil is because it is the cheapest oil for making cosmetics, foods, soap, and other products (also for biodiesel). M&S has evidently decided that its customers would not be willing to pay higher prices to be sure their products contained oil from sustainably managed plantations.

There are many situations where consumers are willing to pay these costs, such as "fair trade" commodities like coffee, GMO-free products, Certified Organic products, kosher and halal products, products of specific origin like wines and cheeses from Champagne or Roquefort, dairy products from cows not treated with rBST, and thousands of others.

There are value chains where it is not practical to maintain the identity of production from particular sources, such as renewable wind-generated electricity which is fed into the general electricity grid. For these situations a system of tradable certificates has been devised. (See this earlier post for how such tradable green energy certificates work.)

The GreenPalm system that M&S is going to use is a tradable certificate of sustainable production program like Renewable Energy Certificates. It is much cheaper to keep track of electronic certificates than to build separate storage tanks, carry out isolated processing runs, and maintain all the paperwork that has to accompany a shipment to show its sustainable identity has been preserved. Much, much cheaper. Yet money does flow back from the purchaser (M&S, for example) to the producer who has gone to the trouble to use sustainable production methods, thus presumably encouraging such production.

Unfortunately since the GreenPalm certificates are traded in an open market their value does not necessarily cover the incremental costs of sustainable palm oil production. Currently crude palm oil certificates cost about $9.50, presumably per tonne.

But consumers may not understand this difference. Sooner or later some consumers will realize that the labeling on their M&S chips or whatever that says something like " supports the production of sustainable palm oil" does not mean that those chips actually were made with sustainably produced palm oil. Also the RSPO and its criteria could be subject to criticism (it is certainly not an independent certification body).

We predict confusion and potential backlash, and continued rampant destruction of tropical forest and peatland for production of cheap, unsustainable, high-carbon palm oil.