JOT GREEN

Are mobile phone transmissions killing honey bees?

2009-11-06T22:55:00.000-08:00

The scientific name for it is "colony collapse disorder." In recent years, bees have been disappearing. Nobody seems to know the exact cause. Some researchers in India may have found evidence that cell phones contribute to the plight of the honey bee. But evidence is lacking.

This Wikipedia article surveys some of the more promising hypothesis. Mercola, a physician who has looked at various studies, suggests that "a combination of deadly factors" may be destroying honey bees. His list includes:

Pesticides
Genetically modified crops
Micro-organisms that compromise the immune system
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), frequently used for feeding by certain bee farmers

Saltworks Technologies: low-cost desalination

2009-10-29T21:28:00.000-07:00

UPDATED
Two Canadians, Ben Sparrow and Joshua Zoshi, founders of Saltworks Technologies, appear to have developed a truly low-cost desalination technology. The pair have discovered a way to use the heat of the sun to power the process, reducing the cost of desalination by 80%. The Economist reports that the beauty of their system is that ".... the only electricity needed is the small amount required to pump the streams of water through the apparatus. All the rest of the energy has come free, via the air, from the sun."

According to the company's website:

Saltworks' patent pending technology employs an innovative thermo-ionic energy conversion system that uses up to 80 percent less electrical/mechanical energy relative to leading desalination technologies. The energy reduction is achieved by harnessing low temperature heat and atmospheric dryness to overcome the desalination energy barrier. Saltwater is evaporated to produce a concentrated solution. This solution, which has concentration gradient energy, is fed into Saltworks' proprietary desalting device to desalinate either seawater or brackish water. Some electrical energy is used to circulate fluids at a low pressure, yet the bulk of the energy input is obtained through the evaporation of saltwater.

As this technology is most useful in hot, desert climates lacking in water, it could change the world.

UPDATE 1

A Reuter's article surveys the environmental hazards of desalination technology. The main problem, of course is the high energy consumption (think more greenhouse gasses) of desalination systems in use today. But there is another environmental risk factor associated with desalination:

Large-scale desalination engineering could also endanger sea life, the WWF said, urging further research into the tolerance of marine organisms and ecosystems to higher salinity and brine waste, byproducts of the salt removal process.

Does Saltworks also have an answer to the problem of byproduct disposal? It would be interesting to get their response.

UPDATE 2
A reader who comes across as quite knowledgeable about the question raised in Update 1 responds in comments:

If Sparrow and Zoshi have uncovered a new low- energy method of desalinization, then this is an important discovery.

The problem of the disposal of the extracted salts is not trivial but it is not a particularly difficult one to solve. The salts are a natural materials and their disposal only creates a problem when they are returned to fresh water or to to the ocean where they will increase the salinity of local ocean waters. Many areas of the world are underlain by layers of saline rocks formed from the natural evaporation of sea water. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that artificial layers of "rock" salt could be constructed and covered to prevent any significant return of the salts to the local environment. Also, most of the landmass of the world has saline groundwater at depth. Some of these saline waters are considerably more salty than sea water and concentrated saline waters from a desalinization plant could be injected into such formations and so kept from the local biosphere. Such injection of saline wastes into deep wells is an established industrial process. Another solution is to use some of the salts for table salt or industrial salt.

It would be interesting to know how energy-intensive remediation efforts such artificial layering, wells, and injection of saline water tends to be. The total energy costs of desalination projects -- whether Saltworks or by other means -- should factor waste disposal, recycling etc.

Kyoto Treaty, Climate Bill: perverse incentives to clear forests for biofuels

2009-10-29T18:15:00.000-07:00

Economist:

the widespread growth of biofuel crops is likely to cause a net global release of greenhouse gases during the first half of the century, as land is cleared and fertilisers are scattered liberally. In the right circumstances the CO2 account, they reckon, could move into profit by mid-century, but the nitrous oxide account never does.

Tim Searchinger’s Science paper, meanwhile, looks at the way the accounts are drawn up in the here and now. Dr Searchinger, who works at Princeton University, and his collaborators point out that the rules for assessing compliance with the Kyoto protocol (which are also included in the version of America’s climate bill that passed the House of Representatives) are biased in favour of biofuels because they fail to account for emissions from land cleared to grow such fuels. Combine that observation with Dr Melillo’s modelling and you have a recipe for some perverse incentives indeed.

Sadly, settled international standards on biofuels or on a trading system that includes their carbon-cutting benefits are probably a long way off. Two more items on the “too busy to do” list of the Copenhagen conference on climate change.

This hardly seems like a valid excuse.

US Vs China at the Bangkok Climate Talks

2009-10-08T22:48:00.001-07:00

Continued from this post.

The American negotiator,

forcefully outlined America's opposition to the Kyoto protocol. "We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."

Here's China's positition:

Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks, said rich countries should not desert the Kyoto agreement, which all industrialised countries except the US signed up to and was ratified in 2002 after many years of negotiations. It contains no requirement for developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as both their current and historical emissions are low in most cases.....

"The Kyoto protocol is not negotiable. We want [it] to be strengthened. We don't want to kill Kyoto. We really want a revival, a strengthening of the treaty. That can only be done by Annex I [industrialised] countries having a target of 40% cuts by 2020," said Yu.

The Guardian notes: "However, China, with its surging economy and rapidly expanding population is now the world's biggest polluter."

Isn't the way out of this impasse seems obvious? China and the developing world must commit to meeting clean energy targets, but the West should the lead the way in terms of reducing emissions. Is that too much too ask? The article continues:

The difference between the sides is now considered to threaten the success of the talks. In essence, the US is insisting on a completely new agreement, with all countries signed up and all countries free to choose and set their own targets and timetable. Most other countries want to keep the existing agreement as a basis for negotiations, to ensure that rich countries are held by international law to agreed cuts. China in particular wants cuts calculated on a per capita basis.

Don't these poor countries get it? The United States is not bound by international law to the extent other countries are bound. It's the task of Americans to help to write the laws for others (as it did in the case of Kyoto), and then lecture the rest of the world on their "delinquency" from time to time. (For example, the Obama Administration made it quite clear that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the US. It is for other countries to prosecute their leaders for war crimes. Because when the US violates agreements, it always does so for good reason.)

The Guardian article continues:

Diplomats last night suggested that the only way out could be for the US to be asked to sign a separate agreement acceptable to developing countries, which would see it cutting emissions at a comparable speed to other countries.

The G77 countries are meeting to consider their oppositions. One diplomat said: "They are very angry. People have talked of walking out."

Waxman-Markey goes to the Finance Committee

2009-10-08T22:43:00.001-07:00

Robert Reich blogs about how so much sound and fury on capital hill can produce so little by way of helpful results.

. . . .environmental legislation is now slinking its way through Congress. The Waxman-Markey climate bill was passed by the House in June; John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have now released a Senate version. All four legislators claim to be progressives concerned about the environment, but the bills are, frankly, far short of what’s needed. Waxman-Markey gives away 85 percent of pollution permits to the nation’s biggest polluters, and the “cap” it proposes on overall carbon emissions would cut greenhouse gas emissions only by an estimated 2 to 4 percent by 2020 compared to the UN reference year of 1990. (If America was to play its appropriate role in a global climate deal, the reduction would be more like 40 percent, and the U.S. would also provide financing and technology so developing countries could reduce their emissions by a comparable amount.) The Kerry-Boxer bill has a stronger cap on emissions but it’s still far short of what’s necessary — and it leaves out the hardest part, which is the actual cap-and-trade mechanism. Kerry and Boxer are leaving that to the Senate Finance Committee, of all places.

The Finance Committee is dominated by "blue dogs" -- senators from small states who mainly represent the large corporations that fund their campaigns. Meanwhile, the US demonstrates global leadership at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks (just kidding, of course).

Bangkok climate change talks update

2009-10-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

Oxfam reports:

THURSDAY 8 OCTOBER 2009
The G77 and China are justifiably outraged about moves in Bangkok by rich countries to re-write cornerstones of the Bali Action Plan and the UN Climate Convention, international aid agency Oxfam said today.

“In Bangkok, not only have rich countries tried to change the rules of the game, but they’ve tried to change the game itself,” Oxfam’s senior climate adviser Antonio Hill said today.

“Developing countries are right to cry foul. It’s hard to see these moves as anything other than an attempt to weaken commitments that rich countries have made in past agreements.

“Fifteen years ago, rich countries agreed they would take the lead. In 2007 in Bali, they reaffirmed their commitments would be greater than developing countries and different in nature.

“Here in Bangkok, they are unpicking the threads of those agreements and trying to force the G77 and China to take actions that would be unfair considering the gaping hole in rich country commitments....

“The Bali Road Map set a clear path to Copenhagen. Rather than walking down the path together with developing countries, rich countries are now proposing a dangerous off-road excursion. ...

“What we needed to see in Bangkok was a debate between the US, Australia, Canada, Japan and the EU about what their respective efforts would be - their fair share of both finance and emissions reduction targets and whether they address the risks that the poorest people already face.

“Today, Norway has entered this debate and set a target of 40 per cent below 1990 levels, so we know what leadership looks like.”

Consistent with the Bali Action Plan, many developing countries are already doing their fair share by making significant steps to reduce emissions, and have signalled their willingness to discuss further action – provided that developed countries provided financial and technological support.

Mexico has already committed to halving its emissions by 2050. Despite facing huge development challenges, and with much of its population still living in poverty, China is a world leader in renewable energy investment, has committed to cutting emissions by a notable margin, and has offered support to help developing countries, including small island states and African nations, adapt to the impacts of climate change.

“The actions by rich countries over the past two weeks are even less acceptable given they are yet to deliver a serious offer on finance,” Mr Hill said. “Every time developed countries talk about further actions that China needs to take, they are shirking their own responsibilities.”

Bangkok climate talks reach an impass

2009-10-07T02:49:00.000-07:00

At the Bangkok Climate Change Talks, the developing world, led by China, wants Kyoto provisions strengthened. The Kyoto treaty, of course, had put the onus for cuts on first world countries.

The Telegraph:

Emerging giants such as China and other developing countries say the new agreement should strengthen Kyoto, under which 37 highly industrialised nations took on hard commitments for cutting carbon dioxide pollution between 2008 and 2012.

The United States signed the treaty in 1992 but never ratified it, and thus was exempt from its provisions.

In Bangkok, several nations - notably the US, Australia and Japan - have floated proposals calling for an approach in which each country would make its own national commitments.

These would be measurable and verifiable, but outside any kind of internationally enforceable compliance regime.

Rich nations have suggested that poorer countries, which had no Kyoto obligations, could make efforts to curb carbon dioxide output in keeping with their level of development under such a scheme.

Instead, China called for beefing up Kyoto, which could exist along with whatever other measures might be adopted at the climate conference in Copenhagen.

Meanwhile:

Carol Browner, Barack Obama's energy adviser, admitted that the US senate would probably not vote on its global warming bill before the talks in Copenhagen, seriously limiting the US president's ability to commit to new plans at the summit.

That's a real let down. More about the impass at The Nation, which reports on the China delegation's frustration:

"Two months to Copenhagen and we are not making any progress in Bangkok," Chinese ambassador Yu Qingtai, who is special representative to the UN's climate-change talks said yesterday.

"The fundamental reason is the lack of political will from the 36 Annex I countries to make progress," he added. [Annex 1 countries include most OECD member states, central and eastern Europe countries and the Commonwealth of Independent States ]

Four key issues for a Copehagen Agreement

2009-10-05T12:02:00.000-07:00

The Copenhagen agreement must focus on four key issues (Nation):

The first is clarity on the mid-term emission reduction targets that industrialised countries will commit to.

Second, there must be clarity on the actions that developing countries could undertake to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, it must define stable and predictable financing to help the developing world reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate.

And finally, it must identify institutions that will allow technology and finance to be deployed in a way that treats developing countries as equal partners in the decision-making process.

For an update on the Bangkok Climate Change Talks see this post.

Water Conundrum

2009-10-01T01:06:00.001-07:00

NYT:

Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.

Johan Rockström: 9 Planetary Boundaries

2009-09-27T00:40:00.000-07:00

Scientists hope identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries "that must not be transgressed" could keep humans from wrecking the climate any further.

A new study published in Science argues:

To avoid catastrophic environmental change, humanity must stay within defined 'planetary boundaries' for a range of essential, and interlinked, Earth-system processes, argues a Feature article in this week's Nature. The authors warn that the maximum acceptable limit has been passed for climate change, species loss and the nitrogen cycle, and is nearing for three more processes.

What are the boundaries? These are the nine:

climate change rate
biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine)
interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles
stratospheric ozone depletion
ocean acidification
global freshwater use
change in land use
chemical pollution
atmospheric aerosol loading

The authors write, "The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded." I've highlighted these in red.

Why is this concept useful? "There are at least three reasons for our proposed climate boundary."

First, current climate models may significantly underestimate the severity of long-term climate change for a given concentration of greenhouse gases¹². Most models¹¹ suggest that a doubling in atmospheric CO₂ concentration will lead to a global temperature rise of about 3 °C (with a probable uncertainty range of 2–4.5 °C) once the climate has regained equilibrium. But these models do not include long-term reinforcing feedback processes that further warm the climate, such as decreases in the surface area of ice cover or changes in the distribution of vegetation. If these slow feedbacks are included, doubling CO₂ levels gives an eventual temperature increase of 6 °C (with a probable uncertainty range of 4–8 °C). This would threaten the ecological life-support systems that have developed in the late Quaternary environment, and would severely challenge the viability of contemporary human societies.
The second consideration is the stability of the large polar ice sheets. Palaeoclimate data from the past 100 million years show that CO₂ concentrations were a major factor in the long-term cooling of the past 50 million years. Moreover, the planet was largely ice-free until CO₂ concentrations fell below 450 p.p.m.v. (100 p.p.m.v.), suggesting that there is a critical threshold between 350 and 550 p.p.m.v. (ref. 12). Our boundary of 350 p.p.m.v. aims to ensure the continued existence of the large polar ice sheets.
Third, we are beginning to see evidence that some of Earth's subsystems are already moving outside their stable Holocene state. This includes the rapid retreat of the summer sea ice in the Arctic ocean¹³, the retreat of mountain glaciers around the world¹¹, the loss of mass from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets¹⁴ and the accelerating rates of sea-level rise during the past 10–15 years¹⁵.

How much will Waxman-Markey cost taxpayers?

2009-09-25T19:34:00.000-07:00

Krugman:

It’s important, then, to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial. Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either.

How do we know this? First, the evidence suggests that we’re wasting a lot of energy right now. That is, we’re burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

Second, the best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average family. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the effects of Waxman-Markey, concluding that in 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income. That’s roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day.

By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income. But the budget office also predicts that real G.D.P. will be about two-and-a-half times larger in 2050 than it is today, so that G.D.P. per person will rise by about 80 percent. The cost of climate protection would barely make a dent in that growth. And all of this, of course, ignores the benefits of limiting global warming ...

Jellyfish population has exploded in the Sea of Japan

2009-09-19T18:34:00.000-07:00

Japan Probe:

The jellyfish originate in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea. No one is entirely sure of why the giant jellyfish population is increasing, but it has been argued that global warming or Chinese pollution has killed off some of their natural predators, allowing them to grow to an enormous size before leaving Chinese waters and heading into the Sea of Japan.

The case for a Border Carbon Adjustment tax

2009-09-11T22:21:00.000-07:00

First the United States Congress, and now the President of France is talking about instituting border carbon tax regimes to win domestic political support for cap and trade. These taxes could seriously impact goods from developing countries such as China.

In a report for the IISD entitled Border Carbon Adjustment Aaron Cosbey (Pdf) wrote:

One policy option that has been repeatedly proposed to deal with such challenges is border carbon adjustment(BCA),2 a trade measure that would try to level the playing field between domestic producers facing costly climate change measures and foreign producers facing very few.While a BCA could conceivably work in conjunction with any number of domestic climate change regimes, it has been proposed to date as a companion to either a domestic carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme. In the case of a carbon tax, a BCA would charge imported goods the equivalent of what they would have had to pay had they been produced domestically, in the manner of a border tax adjustment. Such a scheme might also rebate the paid tax to exporters, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in international markets. In the case of a cap-and-trade scheme, a BCA would force domestic importers or foreign exporters of goods to buy emission permits based on the amount of carbon emitted in the production process, in a requirement analogous to that faced by domestic producers.

BCAs have typically been touted as means to address competitiveness concerns, as noted above. They might play at least two other useful roles. One is to avoid what is known as carbon leakage. That is, if strong domestic action causes firms to relocate to other countries, or to lose market share to those countries, then the emission reduction achieved at home is simply offset to some extent by an increase in emissions abroad. The fear in fact is that they will be more than offset, as production moves to low-standard jurisdictions. While it is closely related to competitiveness, carbon leakage is a distinct concern, focusing on the effectiveness of environmental policy. A final justification for a BCA is that it might act as an effective threat to encourage developing countries to take on hard commitments in the climate change negotiations—in the manner of trade sanctions, or threats of trade sanctions.

Such taxes appear to be perfectly legitimate under WTO rules. As Columbia University Economics Professor Joseph Stiglitz has noted, "Not paying the cost of damage to the environment is a subsidy, just as not paying the full costs of workers would be."

Nevertheless, I believe that -- as border carbon adjustments can be perceived to constitute "a threat" they should instituted as a last resort, not an integral part of the architecture of the early preliminary efforts at legislating Cap and Trade by the West.

What is black carbon?

2009-09-04T01:52:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia:

Black carbon is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.

NY Times:

In fact, reducing black carbon is one of a number of relatively quick and simple climate fixes using existing technologies — often called “low hanging fruit” — that scientists say should be plucked immediately to avert the worst projected consequences of global warming.

Report of the IGSD (pdf):

New and Stronger Efforts Are Needed to Address Black Carbon

New and stronger efforts are needed to address Black Carbon, at all levels, from local to international. An initial list of options at the international and regional level includes:
Developing a treaty under UNEP.
Expanding the post-2012 UN climate treaty.
Developing a regional arrangement under the Arctic Council.
Establishing specially protected areas to restrict shipping in the Arctic and other areas sensitive to Black Carbon’s change in albedo.
Expanding and strengthening controls on shipping under the Int’l Maritime Organization.
Expanding and strengthening controls on aviation under the Int’l Civil Aviation Organization
Expanding and strengthening controls on stationary and mobile sources under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution.
Building on the existing national laws noted below in the discussion on compliance, there are many options at the national and local level to develop new and stronger laws to address Black Carbon. These laws can be pursued by parliamentarian groups such as GLOBE, as well as by national lawmaking bodies. In addition, there are other policy processes that can be used t address black carbon immediately, including:
Using World Bank Climate Investment Fund to help reduce Black Carbon.
Emphasizing climate benefits and other synergies of reducing Black Carbon with the World
Health Organization’s efforts to reduce indoor air pollution and improve the health of women and children.
Emphasizing importance of Black Carbon for achieving Millennium Development Goals.
Pursuing and accounting for the benefits of Black Carbon in the World Summit for
Sustainable Development’s (WSSD) efforts to provide access for the poor to clean energy resources.
One important outcome of the WSSD was UNEP’s Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, which has facilitated the transition to unleaded fuels and is now focusing expanding the availability of ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel.97 This fuel not only lowers sulfur emissions, leading to less overall air pollution, but also allows the most effective particulate emissions control technologies to be used.

How to stop climate change

2009-09-01T11:11:00.000-07:00

What does the news media -- and the rest of us -- need to know about climate change? I listened to Shell Oil Chairman Jorma Ollila and UC Santa Barbara professor of environmental economics Charles Kolstad respond to this question in Helsinki. In his prepared statement Jorma Ollila said the developed world must develop the appropriate "policies and incentives" and "lead by example." Ollila and Kolstad both called for a cap and trade system, discussing what it will cost to do this the right way. They explained why governments must provide R&D incentives to bring renewable energy from lab to the marketplace and why innovation happens so slowly in the energy sector. Alarmingly, Ollila noted that investment in renewables is now falling.

Carbon emissions by region

2009-07-10T11:27:00.000-07:00

Check out the yellow line in the chart (Eastern Europe). InBalance has a good post about its significance in the global climate change debate.

Green ethic integral to Nordic countries' economic success

2009-07-08T23:40:00.000-07:00

At the IPI World Congress in Helsinki, Pär Nuder, former Minister of Finance for Sweden said he would explain the success of Nordic countries in six or seven points:

Open economies. Free traders in his genes. Free trade key since “back when”. No other countries -- except perhaps Netherlands -- have so many well-known international brands. Part of Nordic culture to be free traders.
Social democratic system. I believe in strong public finances. Much fight deficits and high inflation.
Human capital investment. Invest in people through education and R&D. We know we have to compete with more R&D.
Inclusive workforce. Natural conclusion. If you want a sustainable society, must mobilize whole work force, including women. Highest female participation in the labor force. World’s most generous parental leave. One percent of GDP (spent on childcare) delivers highest female participation in labor.
Green ethic. Back in the early 90s we introduced a CO2 tax. We lowered tax on labor, raised it on emissions.
Cooperation. Eternal conflict between work and capital. We are too small, we concluded to have labor conflicts. Our countries are very vulnerable to lack of peace on labor market, so we need organized, responsible, labor unions. We have social bridges for people to walk on. These social bridges mean that more people willing to accept the often painful adjustments of global market capitalism. You can have world's highest taxes if they promote not only equality and safety, but high growth. These could be adopted by other countries.

I had not known about point number five, the "green ethic." To think these guys had a CO2 tax back in the early 90s! Brilliant.

Read the whole panel discussion here.

Research and development for commercializing alternative energy

2009-07-08T13:45:00.000-07:00

At the IPI World Congress in Helsinki Jorma Ollila, who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia, stressed the need for the right government policies and incentives. Ollila said:

. . . we need government support for changes. Government support is critical over the course of next decade -- to deploy by 2020s. We have it in the lab, we do not have commercial projects. This process is not viable without the right kind of government support.

Looking at the Obama government's actions, related to the stimulus package: I see significant and commendable R&D support. Europe took some significant decision earlier this spring -- the US will go there too I understand.

Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara addressed the question as to whether government or the private sector ought to conduct research and development aimed at the commercialization of alternative energy technologies:

Charles Kolstad: Price of carbon will have an impact. Without a price of carbon it's hard to get behavior change. In terms of R&D, we have not been successful in many areas. Compact florescent light bulb is most effective success of the past 30 yrs. Govt R&D succeeds best when the horizon is far away. When it comes to consumer technologies evidence isn't there (that governments can drive innovation).

See the full text of Charles Kolstad's talk (Pdf).

The IPI panel on climate change also included Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN). It was moderated by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion -- see "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"

___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

How much will it cost to cap CO2 emissions?

2009-07-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki in early June, Charles Kolstad, Professor of Environmental Economics and Policy, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UC Santa Barbara responded to a question about the cost of cap and trade.

Hindu Newspaper Editor: If you were to put a figure on costs, in terms of GDP how much will it cost to put a cap on emissions? How is the burden to be shared globally?

Charles Kolstad: The cost estimate is one percent of GDP -- around that. The Stern Review has figures as high as 7 or 8 percent in extreme case of costs being higher than expected. Look at the Ozone Treaty on CFCs: any extra costs were to be paid for by developed world. Such an approach seems more than reasonable. CFCs have become more targeted; carbon pervasive, of course. I suspect that the developed world, in any agreement, will agree to absorb much if not all of costs.

At the end of June 2009, Paul Krugman pointed to an estimate that the cost of cap and trade could be far lower than $1.00 a day. See Can we afford cap and trade?

The IPI panel discussion on climate change also included Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Nokia; Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Why cap and trade is preferable to carbon tax

2009-07-08T12:05:00.002-07:00

It's the politics. At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila, Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara, and Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), addressed the question as to which was preferable, cap and trade or a carbon tax:

Question: There is talk about the "green paradox." [Jotman: The "green paradox" says that "policies of lowering carbon demand may aggravate rather than alleviate climate change"] Some areas using more energy, even as others use less. Do we need new taxation or market system to make greenhouse gas reduction more effective? [Jotman: i.e. should there be a carbon tax?]

Charles Kolstad: The green paradox, tax-wise, is that if you tax, producers could reduce the price of oil. Cap and trade gives you insurance on such price reductions by producers.

Jorma Ollila: In a perfect world, "cap and trade" and tax amount to the same thing. The question is, which system addresses the real world better? Industry prefers a cap and trade system to tax for two reasons. First, for SO2 reduction you can buy SO2 certificates. It works well. (Though implementation so far it has been confined and small). The system that was first implemented in Europe proved to have been too liberal in allocating certificates. Some "stupid Euro system" talk resulted in the US media. Second, the only problem with tax is that it is hard to do politically.

Ali Sayigh: A reward system is preferable than tax or punishment. Politicians can't be counted on, we need the media to educate the public.

These remarks were made during the IPI panel discussion on climate change, moderated by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom."

Why has technology advanced so slowly in the energy sector?

2009-07-08T12:05:00.001-07:00

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila explained that there was no "overnight" solution to the climate change crisis. Ollila is well qualified to address this subject, as I blogged previously:

There has been a lot of optimism -- especially in the US about the possibility of solving the climate change crisis with technology. Today's panel discussion focused on how this can be made to happen; on how technology can make for a green future. But this process will invariably take time. More time, in fact, than most people with a technology background who think about the problem tend to realize at first.

Longer, for example, than someone like Ollila had assumed when he first arrived at Shell. Ollila, it so happens, came to Shell from the telecom industry, where innovation happens in the blink of an eye. Today Ollila serves not only as chairman of Shell, but also heads Nokia. It's a clearly a testimony to the perceived importance of technology to the energy industry that Shell brought a former Nokia executive to the helm. Speaking with Ollila after the presentation he told me, "Shell has long been the most technologically-driven of the big oil companies." He added, "Shell invests 50% more in renewable technologies than any other big oil company."

The discussion might not have touched on this critical theme to such an extent were it not for an excellent question posed by Simon Li, formerly of the LA Times:

Simon K.C. Li: The Nokia/Shell gentleman is talking about success by 2050. Forty years! Now, if we look back forty years, observe how technology has changed our lives in portions of that period, say the last 20 years. Why in this matter do we project such slow technological change? First mobile phones cost $$$$, now same mobile phone costs $ -- for tiny phones! What is it about this kind of R&D that makes it so much slower; why must it take so much longer with respect to the energy sector?

Jorma Ollila: I asked this myself when I entered Shell from Nokia. It took a while. You have Moore's law in effect in telecom. When that exponentially kicks in you can do wonders with the products. But the energy laws of thermodynamics limit what you can do in this other area. Nobody can figure out how to get around these. Mr. Chu (scientist who is new US energy secretary) can do a good job, but he hasn't been able to go around these laws.

Bill Gates was saying to me that it's not a problem; that the sun radiates 18,000 times more energy than what we consume. But we can't figure out how to do it cheaply. Bill Gates became interested. So are many others. The Google founders are funding venture work in renewable energy. It's an intriguing problem for them.

Later in the discussion, Ollila made this remark:

Jorma Ollila: So where are we? With respect to biofuels? Wind? Solar? When will they be significant?

Today 80 percent of energy is carbon-based. (And if all goes as planned) we will only be down to 70-75 percent by 2030. However, by 2050 renewable would account for much more -- the renewables really kick in around then.

Another explanation for the slow progress is lack of investment. As Ollila pointed out -- during another segment of the talk (see here) -- investment in alternative energy is now declining!

Ollila noted that another obstacle to more a rapid reduction of carbon emissions is billions of dollars of investment tied-up in existing infrastructure and durable goods.

Jorma Ollila: Pace of change is limited by the trillions of dollars tied up in US capital investments. For example, a car lasts 20 years. A power plants last 40 years. To speed up the pace of change would mean premature scrapping of capital investments. In the recent Shell Energy Scenarios, that is. [Jotman: presumably, by scrapping investments prematurely you waste a certain amount of energy].

Concurring with Ollila, environmental economist Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara agreed that the new alternative energy technologies that can save the planet would take years to emerge. However, the the bright side of such a gradual shift is that the transition that lies ahead need not be painful:

Allow me to close with the old "frog in water story" in which the frog is slowly brought to boil, but told differently (positively). If we slowly increase the pressure to reduce carbon, we will find ourselves in new world and not even miss old world.

Being speedy and in a hurry will increase costs. Don't prematurely phase-out infrastructure. [Jotman: I guess because it costs so much energy to produce the new infrastructure.... I suppose that's the calculation].

As for the economics: it will not be cheap or easy; but doable, and considering magnitude of the risks, justified.

The IPI panel discussion on climate change also included Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Investment in alternative energy has decreased

2009-07-08T12:05:00.000-07:00

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila noted that there had been a steep decline in investment in alternative energy.

Jorma Ollila: Where are we with respect to technology?

We all agree we have the need to invest in renewable technologies. But look at what is happening this year with respect to investment in energy. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) investment in alternative energy is down by 20 percent! Because of our other capacity. This year investment in renewable technologies is down by 40 percent compared to last year. Some mature technologies are about to be commercialized. Why down? Oil prices collapsed, so viability based on return of investment is different this year.

That's why we need public policy in order to get investment into renewables. Its a complex bind. I'm impressed with what US Energy Secretary Chu and President Obama have said with respect to their aims in terms of the stimulus package.

This was an excerpt from the IPI panel discussion on climate change that included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara, Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Carbon credits: Is the US about to repeat EU's mistake?

2009-07-08T10:24:00.000-07:00

In a perfect world, "cap and trade" and tax amount to the same thing. The question is, which system addresses the real world better? Industry prefers a cap and trade system to tax for two reasons. First, for SO2 reduction you can buy SO2 certificates. It works well. (Though implementation so far it has been confined and small). The system that was first implemented in Europe proved to have been too liberal in allocating certificates. Some "stupid Euro system" talk resulted in the US media. Second, the only problem with tax is that it is hard to do politically.

- Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, speaking in Helsinki, statement from the IPI panel discussion live-blogged by Jotman

How did Europe make a mess of cap and trade? Is the US about to make the same mistake? Peter Fairely discusses the European cap and trade debacle in the Jul/Aug issue of MIT's Technology Review:

In theory, limiting the supply of the pollution allowances helps to establish a price for the emission of carbon dioxide. That, in turn, is meant to provide industrial manufacturers and power producers with financial incentives to develop cleaner technologies. The reality has played out very differently, however. A glut of pollution credits, distributed without cost during both the first, transitional phase of the program and the current working phase, drove down the value of the EUAs. As a result, Europe's carbon dioxide emissions remain priced well below 20 euros per ton. With the price of pollution so low, economists say, industries that generate and consume energy have no incentives to change their habits; it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels than to switch to technologies that pollute less.

The article examines the failure of the EU's approach:

in May 2006, EUAs plummeted in value, to less than 15 euros. After recovering briefly in the summer of 2006, EUA futures settled at close to zero for the remainder of the trial phase. Emissions data released in May 2008 revealed that European states, relying on unreliable emissions estimates and under pressure from various industries, had handed out EUAs for 6,321 million tons of carbon dioxide during the first phase, exceeding total actual emissions during the period by 107 million tons.
Global recession is now undermining the second phase of the trading system, which started last year. The European Union set the cap for the 2008-2012 period at 6.5 percent lower than the cap for the trial period. Trading volumes initially exploded, according to Point Carbon. But the rally proved short-lived. The EUA price slid to an average of just 11 euros in the first quarter of 2009, as manufacturing slowed in the face of the recession.
The faltering trading scheme may be doing real harm. Free permits and weak carbon pricing have rewarded the heaviest carbon polluters while hurting Europe's consumers. Most EU states gave extra allowances to heavy industries such as cement and steel, because they didn't want to threaten the manufacturers' international competitiveness; by the same logic, states gaverelatively few allowances to producers of electricity, a commodity that must be generated close to consumers and thus is not forced into global competition.

The next part makes a lot of sense. If you give polluting industries something of long-term value for free, then you should offer the same give-away to non-polluting companies. Otherwise, the state discriminates against those who have invested in alternative energy:

But consumers aren't the only ones penalized by the trading scheme and its process of handing out EUAs. Power producers using relatively clean technology are also suffering. Perversely, coal-heavy utilities with the highest emissions benefit the most from carbon trading, since most states allot them more EUAs. This gives them an unfair advantage over producers generating power with natural gas or renewable sources, which release less carbon.

It seems to me that ideally, carbon credits would be distributed to every citizen. Citizens could then sell these credits to companies An equally fair but more efficient way to achieve the same ends would be for the government to auction off the credits, and then send rebate checks to taxpayers. This approach would help compensate citizens for any price increases resulting from the carbon tax (carbon trading, essentially being a tax on industry).

If any carbon trading scheme is to have an effect on climate change, carbon emissions have to be expensive:

How much higher? Surveys of business leaders suggest that they will not seriously reconsider the way they use energy until the price of carbon exceeds 30 euros per ton. The late Dennis Anderson, a professor of energy and environmental studies at London's Imperial College, concluded in 2007 that significant change will come only when carbon prices "move to the upper end" of a range that he put at 40 to 80 euros per ton. Anderson estimated that the 40-euro threshold would have to be met to make onshore wind farms and nuclear power a better investment than natural-gas or coal-fired power plants, while prices would have to approach 80 euros to make carbon capture and storage worthwhile. Even higher prices would be needed to make solar and offshore wind economical.

Economists at the International Energy Agency have recently calculated that holding global warming to a reasonable level would require an annual investment of $1.1 trillion per year. And it would require a $200 per ton price on carbon, said the IEA, to drive the necessary innovation.

The US does not appear to be headed in the right direction. It does not seem to be learning from Europe's mistake:

The U.S. bill, as it stood at press time, proposes to cut emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020--essentially taking the U.S. back to (rather than much below) 1990 levels. And, as with Europe's trading system, a mix of offsets and renewable-energy mandates threatens to further undermine the carbon price. Analysts project U.S. carbon prices at a meager $15 to $20 per ton in 2020--barely a 10th of the price called for by the IEA. Most allowances, meanwhile, will be distributed without charge, despite the risk of windfall-profit taking and perverse market incentives. That move will also deprive President Barack Obama of revenues needed to fund the $150 billion, 10-year program of clean-energy R&D outlined in his 2010 budget proposal.

The prevailing wisdom among supporters of the Waxman-Markey bill is that Congress, wary of putting energy-intensive industries at risk, won't pass anything stronger. Best to get a carbon price established in the U.S. economic system now, supporters say, and tighten the system later. But this cap-and-trade scheme could be weak enough to send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies. If you have any doubts about that, just take a look at the EU.

Can the dysfunctional US political system be expected to accomplish anything worthwhile?

Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila on climate change

2009-07-07T21:20:00.000-07:00

I was present when Jorma Ollila, who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia, spoke to delegates attending the IPI World Congress in Helsinki in early June 2009. In this post, I present my "jots" from Orilla's prepared statement. I was struck by Ollila's unequivocal support for meaningful action at the policy level. Ollila delivered a concise statement that reduced a complicated issue down to several key points. I thought his statement worth thinking about.

I live-blogged the entire panel discussion (see here) which included a lively question and answer session. The other panelists included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara; Ali Sayigh of WREN, and moderator Curtis Brainard of Columbia University.

Jorma Ollila: I will address the question as to whether it is possible to decarbonize in a viable way.

I will assume technological innovations can be successful. Let's assume that is the case. I'm clearly not wanting to minimize the vast challenges that lie ahead. In fact, the more daunting challenge is to manage how we produce energy and allow a raise in living standards.

Developed economies have used up the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2; now developing countries are entering a phase where their need for energy is becoming intensive.

Let's acknowledge three truths:
The demand for energy will continue to surge.
Energy supply will struggle to keep pace.
There will be increasing climate stress based on the current consumption pattern.
We need to obtain as much energy as possible from renewable sources -- and more. We need to strive toward fewer emissions in a "business as usual" pattern. Business-as-usual means that emissions would double by 2050. But in reality we can't continue to consume more than the current level. An 80 percent reduction from current levels is a reasonable goal. Thus, these two alternatives lie ahead. One is socially and morally unacceptable.

Therefore, policies and incentives must be put forward so we get it right.

Firstly, we need a cap and trade system that a puts a cost on emissions, that credibly commits us to a path of energy reductions by creating incentives to cut emissions.

Second, we need government support for changes. Government support is critical over the course of next decade -- to deploy by 2020s. We have it in the lab, we do not have commercial projects. This process is not viable without the right kind of government support.

Looking at the Obama government's actions, related to the stimulus package: I see significant and commendable R&D support. Europe took some significant decision earlier this spring -- the US will go there too I understand.

The points are mutually reinforcing, not exclusive. Emissions caps will become more popular as costs get reduced of meeting caps.

In addition to policy angle, there is a geopolitical angle: significant change with regards to emerging markets. Advanced economies must lead by example. This will necessitate resource transfers from developing to emerging markets. But transfers from govt to govt are problematic. Consider the position of a US political leader who proposed such a transfer. He would face political problems.

Cap and trade is a politically feasible way to make the transfers. CDM is a license to do arbitrage -- create opportunities between developed and developing economies. [Jotman: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) "is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries."] HFC reduction projects, for example. [Jotman: "by destroying the HFCs factories can earn carbon credits"]

Pace of change is limited by the trillions of dollars tied up in US capital investments. For example, a car lasts 20 years. A power plants last 40 years. To speed up the pace of change would mean premature scrapping of capital investments. In the recent Shell Energy Scenarios, that is. [Jotman: presumably, by scrapping investments prematurely you waste a certain amount of energy].

Blueprints: The projected climate outcome would require stabilization at 650ppm in the second half of century. Renewable energy would consist of about 60% of energy. CCS on all new power plants 2020 (West) and elsewhere (2030). That's based on Shell and MIT modeling. Clearly we need this kind of scenario at a minimum. We need better, but we face severe constraints.

Hence the need to increase pace of policy reform.

Ollila also responded to questions from the audience. See my post Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?

Is the Supreme Court anti-environmental?

2009-07-07T07:50:00.001-07:00

Lately the Supreme Court of the United States has sided exclusively with industry, observes Barbara O’Brien of mesothelioma blog:

For environmentalists, the recent Supreme Court term was a shutout — 0 for 5. That is, all five of the “green” cases argued before the Court this term were decided against the environmentalists’ positions.
The defeats were especially painful in that all five decisions reversed lower court decisions in favor of the “greens.”

One decision which the court overturned -- "riverkeeper" -- was by Sotomayor (I blogged about that here), another concerned the Court's support for the navy's use of sonar (here), and in a third, the court decided a mining company could poison an Alaskan lake (here).

In the fourth case (described in some detail by O'Brien), the court ruled Shell was not responsible for paying for the cleanup of wastes it sold to another company even though it had known that the waste was not being properly disposed of (so much for "corporate citizenship"). In the fifth case, the high court ruled "that environmental groups lacked standing to challenge certain U.S. Forest Service regulations."