Badjective

I read a lot about how “clean coal” is going to be a key element of our future energy mix.  Coal is so cheap and abundant, the thinking goes, that we just have to find a way to keep on using it.  In his latest column, Thomas Friedman discusses a “technology that might make coal the cleanest, cheapest energy source by turning its carbon-dioxide emissions into bricks to build your next house.”  Sounds pretty great, I agree, but the cleanest energy source?  Really?  Will it even be a cleaner energy source?  I’m not usually one to get bent out of shape over a little hyperbole, but the timing on this just really irked me.  A few days earlier I had seen this headline:

100 Percent of Fish in U.S. Streams Found Contaminated with Mercury

One hundred percent of fish.  That means all fish.  All of them.  Every flopping one.  And in case you didn’t know, the predominant source of mercury in our environment comes from the burning of coal.  Removing CO2 from the smokestack and burying it or making it into bricks or imprisoning it in a giant snow-globe will not change this.  And of course this is just one of many non-CO2 related ways that coal burning and coal mining degrade the environment.  Remember that coal ash spill in Tennessee back in 2008?  And recall that burning coal is known to contribute to asthma and cardiovascular disease.  Oh, and don’t forget  the very tidy process of mountaintop removal mining, where instead of blasting a hole through the side of a mountain to get to the coal, we just scrape the entire top off, dump the waste on the surrounding land, and pick away at the mountain’s carbon-y guts.  The list goes on.

All I’m asking for is a little linguistic honesty here.  Clean is not and will never be an appropriate adjective for coal.  Let’s not pretend otherwise.

If It Doesn’t Fit…

What, me worry?

Man, I do love me a good and apt analogy.  In this piece, Bill McKibben likens climate change denialism to the OJ Simpson trial.  The “Dream Team” of defense attorneys succeeded in securing the acquittal of their client by deflecting attention from the forensic facts (like, I dunno, the victim’s blood on the OJ’s socks) and instead attacking the process of the investigation against him.  This resonated with the jury, many of whom admitted to having had negative experiences with the LAPD in the past.  Moreover, the burden of proof for the defense is less onerous; a determination of reasonable doubt sets their client free.  Doubt is far easier to sow than guilt is to prove.

The same basic issues are being played out in the “debate” over climate change.  Science has proved that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it via vast emissions of greenhouse gases.  The denier camp cannot refute this with any scientific credibility, so they are attacking the process by which the scientific community has come to their conclusions.  I Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is under for, among the huge amount of data in their most recent report, one inaccurate indication (based on a magazine piece rather than a peer-reviewed journal article) that some Himalayan glaciers are melting more quickly than appears to be true.  Oh, and don’t forget “climategate”, the manufactured news story based on stolen emails between frustrated scientists which, when highly distorted, taken out of context, and blatantly misinterpreted, almost partially seem to indicate that a very small group of scientists might have thought about considering employing dirty tactics to thwart the dirty tactics used by climate change deniers (and then promptly did not).  So you see, clearly the scientific process has failed, rendering all scientific conclusions invalid.  The internet will now disappear in a cloud of dust, so stand back!  Oh, wait, you won’t need to since a lack of gravity will enable you to float out of harm’s way.  Lucky!

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu recently summed up the deniers’ tactical advantage with a quote: “ If you look at the climate skeptics, I would have to say honestly, what standard are they being held to? It’s very asymmetric.  They get to say anything they want.  In the end, the core of science is deeply self checking.” So, via a rigorous scientific process conducted by rigorously trained professionals, we come to a conclusion, but then we have to listen to anyone and everyone with an “opinion” on the issue in order to really decide if it is real.  Why should anyone care what a senator believes about science?  Who decided that this matters in any way?  No one has asked me if I believe in the gravity (I do) or the moon (I’m iffy – could be a weird defect on my cornea).  I certainly do not believe that everyone in the world should be polled to determine what science we want to acknowledge and what we’d prefer to ignore and discard.  Someone please ask me about that.  I have some choice words.

More worrying from my perspective is not the lame attempts to deny the obvious facts about climate change (this is kind of good news, since it shows how strong the case is for it), but the captive audience that desperately wants to buy in to it all.  As McKibben notes, U.S. society as a whole is like those jurors.  We like our comfortable and wealthy lifestyles.  We believe we have enough to worry about without having to worry about rising sea levels, mass extinctions of animals we don’t eat, and poor and hungry people in far off lands getting even poorer and hungrier.  All of these problems are, if they even happen, many years off.  We, collectively, are buying what the deniers are selling because it fits our worldview.

Of course, this only happens to be true at the moment because the deniers have framed the issue and set up a false choice.  There should be no “either-or” here.  It’s not prosperity or responsibility, it’s prosperity and responsibility.  No one in their right mind expects the majority of Americans (of all people) to give up their quality of life for anything, and if we just cut the shit already and put policies in place that will reward innovations that reduce emissions fairly and properly account for the damage caused by existing practices, it’ll become obvious that no one needs to.

What’s my point?  Put a price on carbon, then wait for the deniers to steal valuable sports memorabilia from a Las Vegas hotel room and take it from there.

A Disappointing Week

It’s been a pretty terrible week for anyone who cares about climate change.  Well, really it’s been a pretty terrible week for anyone who cares about human beings, but I’ll limit myself to how current developments are particularly bad for climate change.

On Tuesday, Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts to serve out the remainder of the late Ted Kennedy’s term.  As you all probably know, this has dealt a severe blow to the prospect for meaningful (or any) health care reform.  Brown essentially campaigned on a promise to kill the proposed bill, a particularly hilarious development considering the national proposals are quite similar to the very popular state-wide program already in place for the last few years in Massachusetts.  Maybe the Massholes just wanted to keep it for themselves.  But I digress.  Brown is also a climate change denier.  Well, actually, he is currently a climate change denier.  Two years ago he voted in favor of the northeast regional cap and trade initiative, a program that aims to limit GO2 emissions in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states.  Now, though, he says he doesn’t believe the planet is warming.  Hmmm.  A specific term comes to mind… one used to describe another Massachusetts Senator when he ran for president… something about summertime footwear… nope, I can’t remember it.  Anyway, you can see how Brown could be yet another obstacle to domestic climate change legislation.  Moreover, the surprising election of a Republican in Massachusetts has emboldened many opponents on both sides of the aisle.  Democratic leadership still says they will still tackle it this year… We’ll see.

Yesterday, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced a motion in the Senate to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  Back in 2007, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA had an obligation to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases from certain sources under the existing Clean Air Act.  This is known as the “endangerment finding” because the Court determined that, via its role in contributing to climate change, CO2 presents a danger to the public and should the regulated.  Most everyone agrees that reducing CO2 via other legislative means (like a cap and trade system or a carbon tax) would be highly preferable to having the EPA do it, but the threat of EPA regulation was useful for pushing Congress to act.  Murkowski is trying to remove that threat, and it is all the more disappointing that a number of Democrats have signed on to support her measure.  Analysts do not think she has a good chance of succeeding, but the attempt itself is very disheartening for a few reasons.  Not only do we have to waste our time and energy fighting this nonsense (to me this is essentially lawmakers trying to overturn scientific conclusions), but a good amount of false and misleading information will surely making its way to the public who clearly are susceptible to it.

As the Supreme Court giveth, so doth it taketh away.  In a hotly contested 5-4 split decision, the Court overturned long-standing campaign finance laws this week, allowing corporations, unions, and other special interest groups to spend freely on their candidates of choice (i.e. those who push their agendas and provide them with government largesse).  Our government is already under the influence (double meaning intended) of enormous amounts of special interest money, but rather than rein in this inequity, the Court has pushed us further towards true plutocracy.  You can imagine what this means for climate change.  Umbrella groups set up by big coal and oil interests already wreak havoc; now the corporations can cut out the middle men and buy elections fair and square.  The White House has vowed to fight this.  I hope they mean it.

As I mentioned above, Mr. Brown’s “opinion” regarding climate change reversed over the last two years.  Could this be because recent data support a more skeptical view?  No, it could not.  In fact, this week, both NASA and the U.S. National Climatic Data Center released reports concluding that the 00’s was the warmest decade in recorded history.  There is some uncertainty specifically about 2009, though.  It was either the 2nd or 5th hottest year ever.  Great!  Actually, I consider this news to be both bad, for obvious reasons, and good, since it gives us yet another data-point with which to push the scientific truth.  Hey, I take the good news where I can get it these days.

Last, but certainly not least, this week showed us that much of corporate America continues to demonstrate that it is out of touch and willing to make staggeringly inane decisions to the detriment of its own welfare.  My proof?  Tonight is Conan’s last show, and Leno, like the least funny Lazarus you could imagine, rises from his 10pm grave in a few weeks.  Lord help us if Craig Kilborn returns to The Daily Show.

Putting the Green Where the Gob Is

One of the huge downsides to becoming knowledgeable about environmental issues is the immense guilt that inevitably accompanies it.  For the the better part of 3 decades, I enjoyed relative environmental ignorance.  Oh, sure, I recycled when I could.  I eschewed aerosol cans and bough dolphin-safe tuna.  Small potatoes.  So much of what we (in the developed world) do is just bad for the earth and the vast majority of us have no idea of the collective consequences of our seemingly benign choices.  You could sidestep the issue by blaming industry for selling us harmful products or the government for not keeping industry in check, or your neighbor in the McMansion, driving his Hummer.  But really, the buck has to stop somewhere.  Ultimately one has the highest success rate changing ones own actions, so below are some of the ways I have changed my lifestyle over the past few years.

1.  The majority of my appliances/devices are plugged into power strips that I switch off when I’m not using said appliance/device.  Most electronics draw power when plugged in even when they are not on or in use.  You can prevent this by unplugging them outright or cutting the power at the source.  I believe there are some power strips that “know” when no significant power is being drawn and shut themselves down.  They are probably pricey.  As an alternative, I use a combination of normal, cheap power strips and my elegant index finger.  Electronics subject to this program include my microwave, TVs, game consoles, modem, and router (these last two I think most people don’t ever shut off).  About the only thing that stays on all the time is my DVR so I don’t mess with the recording.  Lesson learned, the hard way.

2.  I bought new wall-mounted heating and cooling units that both have digital thermostats (unlike their predecessors) and use heat pumps (essentially reverse refrigerators) rather than electric radiant heat (think toaster coils).  When I use them, which is actually pretty rarely even in the cold New York City winter (most of the time a warm sweater plus my dog get the job done), I set the thermostat to 64 in winter and 76 in summer.

3.  Both 1. and 2. aim to cut my household electricity usage significantly, but of course it’s tough to know if they are making any difference unless I measure my daily electricity usage.  So I measure my daily electricity usage and record it on a spreadsheet for easy analysis (what, me nerdy?).  In most apartments, such daily monitoring isn’t possible, but thankfully my building uses sub-metering, so I have an electricity meter in my linen closet that ticks off the kilowatt hours in real time.  Most mornings at 8am, I check the reading and mark it down.  Since I started on my efficiency campaign, I’ve cut our apartment-hold usage from about 7-11 kWh/day to about 4-8 kWh/day.  Do I get a prize?

4.  Perhaps my biggest lifestyle change has been my diet, and this has changed in I’d say 2.5 major ways:

• I keep a vegetarian diet for 3-4 days a week (1 way).  This means no meat whatsoever, including fish, which is meat to me but oddly not to everyone (Catholics, I am looking at you).  I do typically eat eggs and/or dairy on these days, mostly because my wife has a mild cheese addiction.  The reason?  I could go into great detail about this, but suffice it to say that to produce one pound of beef, for example, a cow eats about ten pounds of animal feed.  One serving of meat uses resources equivalent to roughly ten servings of rice or pasta.  So the resources that went into a single quarter-pounder could actually have fed Charlie Sheen, John Cryer, and that kid (a few years ago, anyway).  Additionally, a significant amount of deforestation is the result of the drive to create more pastureland for grazing animals.  All of this pushes me to more plant-based meals.  I still do eat meat, but more rarely and certainly more appreciatively.
• A larger proportion of the food I buy is organic (0.5 way).  Organic farming avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers (typically made from fossil fuels) as well as pesticides and herbicides that run off into the water table.  On balance, thumbs up.
• I am more responsible about what seafood I buy and eat (1 way).  I love seafood and used to eat it without much thought as to what I was eating or how it was caught.  But I recently learned about how modern tastes and commercial fishing practices have decimated the seas and put many species under severe population pressure.  If we don’t do something soon, many species will no longer be commercially viable, and could effectively become extinct.  As a result, the types of seafood I am now willing to eat are significantly restricted.  For whatever reason, this issue is something about which I have come to care about deeply, and I will be dedicating a lot more time and effort into sharing what I’ve learned.

Interestingly, I happened on all of my dietary changes via environmental concerns, yet they all actually come with significant health benefits.  Still, I don’t really care too much about that.  I can rot, for all I care.

I am under no delusion – these changes will not close a coal plant.  They will not revive an acre of tropical forest or save even one endangered fart beetle.  To quote Cambridge physicist and author David MacKay, “If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little.”¹  So why go to the effort?  So I can look down my nose at everyone else, of course!  I truth, I do this because I believe it is the morally correct thing to do.  It takes some of the edge off the guilt, protects me from being a hypocrite, puts my money where my mouth is, and just plain makes me feel better.  And maybe, just maybe, if I lead by example I can influence and educate others (isn’t that why you’re here?).

1.  David MacKay, “Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air,” 2008.  I can not recommend this book more highly.  The author sums up his motivation for writing the book:

I would like to help people have honest and constructive conversations about energy. We need to understand how much energy our modern lifestyles use; we need to decide how much energy we would like to use in the future; and we need to choose where we will get that energy from.

Here’s how you know he’s serious: the complete book is available for download, for effing FREE, here.

Pessimism Has Its Uses

The Copenhagen conference ended yesterday, and the results were – well, I guess that depends on who you talk to.

What the Accord SAYS:

• The goal is to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions such that global temperature rise does not exceed 2°C.
• The Kyoto Protocol framework is extended.  Developed nations will be subject to binding emissions reductions while developing nations will continue with voluntary measures.  All nations will report their progress.
• Developed nations should provide adequate financing to help developing nations, generally agreed to be $30 billion per year between 2010 and 2013, eventually increasing to $100 billion per year by 2010.
• Included are commitments to combat deforestation via various international aid mechanisms.
• Technology transfer concerns are left up to individual nations.
• The 2°C goal will be re-evaluated y 2015 to determine if it should be revised downwards to 1.5°C.

What the Accord DOESN’T SAY:

• It gives no firm and binding emissions reductions targets for any nation, nor any targets for collective reductions goals by target years (50% below 1990 levels by 2050, for example) or a deadline for global emissions peaks.
• It gives no details as to how aid funding should be secured.
• It gives no MRV (measurable, reportable, verifiable) mechanism whereby national emissions goals can be confirmed by the international community to ensure that each nation is holding up it’s end of the bargain (the Chinese in particular are opposed to this provision).

No one was particularly pleased with these results.  Some, like me, see it as a small step in the right direction, and essentially a result that was as good as could be expected given the political and economic realities of the day.  Even Obama, who was instrumental in negotiating the Accord with leaders of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa (the leading emitters of the developing world), recognizes that much work needs to be done and that the results are not what science indicates is needed to meet the temperature target.  Others thought the outcome damned the planet for good and signaled the coming of the Four Horsemen.  These people seem to me to have been utterly delusional in their expectations.  Did they think someone was going to sweep in with an effective solution that 193 parties could agree on?  I don’t think such a solution exists to any problem, much less one as complicated as climate change.

Author and Columnist Tom Friedman has (another) interesting piece to today in the New York Times.  He says, “The only engine big enough to save Mother Nature is Father Greed: the Market.” This fits my views nicely, and brings to mind another piece from this week’s Economist which reviews two books that discuss America’s damaging (in their views) proclivity towards “mindless optimism.” This American Optimism, while often a force for progress, is a huge barrier to progress on climate change.  Research shows that stressing the potential catastrophes we’ll face as a result of unchecked climate change is ineffective at getting people to care. Americans in particular just don’t want to hear about potential disasters in the “distant” future. To make matters worse, those championing the cause must necessarily be at least moderate pessimists (or, as we like to call ourselves, realists), and thus have an uphill battle being heard and not merely dismissed out of hand as alarmists and Cassandras (who, incidentally, was right about everything, just never believed).  This is why the issue is increasingly being framed in the U.S. as one of new jobs and energy security. This is the right way to go; focus on what the public can easily get behind and harness our cultural optimism to get results.

This speaks to Mr. Friedman’s point – no one, especially the U.S., will take up climate change because it is the “right thing to do”.  Ideology only works in conjunction with optimism (for example, there is no Bad News Bible that I am aware of).  People must be incentvized to do what is best for them, and nothing pushes that concept like Father Greed. That is why we need policies in place that properly put a price on carbon so that its true cost is reflected and the power of the market can be properly harnessed. Raise energy prices, and people will search for ways to reduce its use. Make coal plants more difficult to run and renewables become more competitive.  It’s an elegant solution that will work if we let it, and I am optimistic (!) that the modest progress from Copenhagen can help push domestic policy in the right direction.

Nuclear Power is Neither New nor Clear. Discuss.

Is nuclear power a climate change solution, or is it just another cane toad?

A “cane toad” is basically a well-intentioned solution that ends up causing more problems than it solves.¹ Cane toads were introduced into Australia in an attempt to control a native beetle that liked to snack on non-native sugar cane.  As a result, not only was there no significant decline in beetle populations, the cane toad became a menace, competing with native species, injuring unfamiliar predators (the toad’s skin secretes a toxin), and generally swarming in biblical plague-like fashion.

The debate over nuclear power has intensified over the last few years as we’ve been searching for viable low-carbon power options.  On a basic level, the camps break down like this:

ProNuke

• Nuclear power is reliable.  Renewables can’t provide baseload power because the wind does not always blow where there are turbines and the sun does not always shine where there are solar panels.
• Nuclear plants can go anywhere.  One of the great advantages of coal, for example, is that you can plop a plant down wherever you need it and shovel in coal to generate power.  Nuclear power preserves this advantage, while other renewables are typically more site-specific and will  require huge transmission upgrades to get the power from where we make it to where we need it.

Summary: nuclear power as diet coal – all the advantages for a fraction of the pollution.

AntiNuke

• Nuclear power is unsafe.  Real or imagined, nuclear power is viewed by the public as scary.  See: Chernobyl, The China Syndrome, Mr. Burns.
• Nuclear power produces nuclear waste.  This can be good if you would like super powers (and who wouldn’t?), but mostly we just don’t have anywhere safe to store it for the thousands of years it needs to decay.
• Nuclear plants make prime terrorist targets and can lead to increased nuclear weapons proliferation.
• Nuclear plants take so long to build that they can’t realistically help us hit any near-term targets.
• Nuclear fuel is not technically renewable, and we could end up in hock to whomever controls uranium stocks.
• Nuclear power is very very very very very very expensive.

Summary: mo’ nukes, mo’ problems.  Cane toad!

One could take (and many have taken) each of these points to task fro both sides.  From my perspective, I worry mostly about the costs.  The fact is that nuclear power is as safe as any large industrial process, if not safer.  Like air travel, nuclear power is subject to a recollection bias.  A few high-profile incidents stick with us and influence our views.  Far more people have been killed, directly or indirectly, by the coal or oil industries than as a result of nuclear power.  I am sure, eventually, a wind turbine blade will break loose and wreak havoc or a solar panel will slide off a roof and flatten someone.

Cost, though, is a big issue.  Nuclear power plants are hugely expensive to build at present.  A proposed plant in Ontario was canceled because the estimated cost came in at $26 billion (with a “b”)!  For one plant!  Of course, experts can provide some convincing reasons why the costs will come down and how the next generation of technologies will address the AnitNuke concerns.  See, for example, this article which profiles Eric Loewen and his fast sodium reactor.  Other technologies will use safer thorium instead of uranium or plutonium, both of which have the potential to be weaponized (though not easily).  Still others are enabling plants to come down in size, reducing costs and safety concerns.

From a practical standpoint, nuclear power will more likely than not have to become a significant part of a climate solution in the US for two reasons.  First, and I will elaborate on this in future posts, many states simply do not have the resources (e.g. wind and sun intensity) to generate all of their power from renewables.  Second, Republicans love nuclear power (and Germans love David Hasselhoff).  In order for a clean energy bill to make it through the Senate with bipartisan support, nuclear power will need to be prominently featured.  At present, Senators Kerry, Graham, Lieberman are putting together such a bill that they hope will garner broad support from their colleagues, and I am optimistic that it will.

So what metaphor should we use for nuclear power?  Cane toad?  Diet coal?  Maybe it’s just safer to go with Paris Hilton.  We’re probably better off without it, but it’s not going anywhere so we might as well make the best of it and get a sex tape every now and again.

1. I made this up.  No one normal uses “cane toad” in this way.

Taking Stock Wednesday

The past week was full of special days.  First we had Thanksgiving.  Then came Black Friday, followed by Cut the Tags Saturday.  The weekend ended, as it traditionally does, with Find Places For New Stuff Sunday.  The new week brought Cyber Monday, because why waste time at home shopping online when you can do it at work?  Yesterday was Regret Tuesday, so named for all the great deals you missed (not, as some maintain, for all the stuff you bought that you didn’t need and/or couldn’t afford).  That brings us to today, Taking Stock Wednesday.

Turning up the serious knob a bit, after the gluttony, sloth, and bargain-hunting (envy?) of the past week, today seems like a good day to talk a bit about the concept of sustainability.  I generally define it as the ability to meet the needs of the present without inhibiting future generations from meeting their needs to a comparable standard.  Some people think about it as an inter-generational variation on the Golden Rule; do unto the future as you would have the future do unto you (because by then there will be time travel and you don’t want your descendants coming back here and giving you what for).  Leave the place cleaner than you found it.  Take only photographs, leave only footprints.  You break it, you bought it.  Don’t shit where you eat.  That kind of thing.

We all know that we do not live sustainable lives.  Far³ from it.  Our entire economic infrastructure is essentially based on extracting non-renewable resources and wasting most of the resulting output.  For example, Americans throw out an astounding amount of food every day (I have seen estimates ranging from 14% to 50%, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was even higher).  Our consumerist culture means that we all have more “stuff” filling our homes than ever.  If something is cheap, buy it!  Even if you don’t really need it, you might use it at some point.  And if not, throw it away or sell it to someone else who doesn’t need it (recycling!).

At this point you might expect me to start preaching about living a more ascetic lifestyle.  Throw away your TV!  Grow hemp and weave your own clothes!  Reject the confines of shoes!  But I will not be doing that.  The simple fact is that our economic system has afforded us a level of comfort and freedom as yet unsurpassed in the history of people.  The system has terrible flaws, no doubt, but I also acknowledge all the good that the current system has brought.  I would not want it to be completely scrapped, nor do I think it ever could be, so don’t look for me outside WTO meetings.  People like their stuff.  And you know what?  That’s OK!  They are not about to give it up anyway.  I personally have hundreds of DVDs, for example.  I throw more food away than I’d care to admit (but not without a fight as my wife can tell you).  I bought 5 ties last Friday, all on sale (I “need” them, I swear).

Having said that, there is whole helluva lot that we can change to overhaul the system to make it more sustainable.  You want 25 t-shirts?  OK, fine.  But we better make sure those shirts are made from cotton that doesn’t use more water than necessary, that the factory doesn’t rely on non-renewable energy (or child labor – sustainability isn’t just environmental), that the dye residues won’t seep underground and make us infertile, and that the shirts won’t sit in a landfill somewhere after we all move on to Four Wolf Moon.  Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.  You’ve heard it before, but it applies to everything, not just tuna cans (which you probably shouldn’t buy anyway – more on that another time) and newspapers.  Do DVDs need to come in big plastic packages?  Probably not, but better yet, do we need DVDs at all?  Why not keep the content on central servers and stream it on demand?  We already do that to an extent, but maybe we could expand the system to more closely match how people actually want access to film libraries.  My point is not about DVDs specifically, but about asking the right questions to come up with sustainable solutions that both deliver the many good parts of our economic system while (eventually) helping to eliminate the negative parts.  There are great opportunities here for creative and dedicated minds.

Gropenhagen, Part 3

The third and final (for now) installment in this series deals with:

Assistance to Developing Countries

If developing countries are going to make significant CO2 cuts, they are going to need a lot of help from the rich world.  This help is going to come in two main forms; direct monetary aid and technology transfer.

Direct Aid

Significantly reducing emissions necessarily comes with a lot of upfront costs.  Even though the resulting new energy system will reduce costs for everyone in the long run, a lot of capital investment is required to get it started.  For example, China is a huge consumer of coal, which is extremely cheap for it to get since it sits on huge piles of the stuff and has lots of inexpensive labor.  Its coal reserves are second in size only to the coal reserves in the US.  Most renewable energy projects, therefore, must become cost-competitive with coal and thus require significant subsidies.  Additionally, developing nations will be hit hardest by climate change and they will need a lot of aid just to fund adaptation projects, such as levees, seawalls, drought catchment projects, and agricultural programs, to name a few.

Preliminary estimates indicate that, collectively, the developing world will need between $5-$7 billion dollars per year to get its programs on track.  This isn’t chump change, but perspective is everything.  GWP (Gross World Product) in 2008 was $61.22 trillion, and US GDP alone was $14.44 trillion.  Additional aid to developing nations, therefore, would be something like 0.01% of world output, or 0.05% of US output.  Nonetheless, as of now only the EU has made a pledge accompanied by a monetary figure.  After a lot of internal debate, they have said they will dedicate €100 million per year (about $149 million as I write this).  This is a bit disheartening considering the fact the the EU is more likely than the US to sign on for additional aid at the moment.

In addition to government pledges, carbon offsets could theoretically provide developing nations with a good chunk of the aid they need.  The Kyoto Protocol includes the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), whereby companies in, say, Europe can pay a company in India to take some action that reduces the Indian company’s emissions.  This is cheaper for the European company than taking an analogous measure itself, and, since CO2 emissions are a global issue, the European company gets reduction credit for the emissions avoided by the Indian project.  These types of offsetting schemes are not without their significant downsides – something that I will surely address in future posts.  Nonetheless, should the US implement a cap and trade system that allows significant amounts of international offsets, a lot of additional funds will be flowing to developing nations that could be used for emissions reduction projects.

One specific type of aid transfer that has garnered a lot of interest has been the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) program.  Because it both releases stored carbon and reduces the Earth’s ability absorb it, deforestation accounts from something like 40% of global CO2 emissions.  Much of the current deforestation occurs in the developing world, notably Indonesia (which, as a result, is the 3rd largest emitter of CO2) and Brazil.  Under REDD, rich nations would essentially pay developing nations not to cut down their forests.  The idea is to value the forests accurately for all the benefits they provide while intact (carbon storage, watersheds, biodiversity, etc.) and contrast this with the short-term gains from slash and burn agriculture or palm oil plantations.  The details of the programs are still in the early stages of development and will likely vary widely from community to community, but right now they seem hold great promise.

Technology Transfer

Not only will developing nations need money to cut emissions, they will need access to the latest and greatest scientific and technological innovations.  The problem with this is that R&D is expensive, and much of the work is being done in the rich world.  And in the rich world, we have a robust and secure patent system that encourages R&D investments by granting patent holders with limited monopolies to profit from their innovations.  Developing nations want preferential access to such innovations, through joint ventures, maybe, or compulsory licenses that the patent holders would grant to local companies at low (or no) rates.  The developed world is justifiably resistant to grant such requests for a number of reasons.  As I mentioned, R&D is expensive, and developing nations are huge markets.  Compromising on licensing fees, for example, can really cut into profits and lengthen project payback periods, discouraging R&D investment.  Additionally, many developing countries are not known for upholding patent rights, particularly when the patent holders are foreign.

One potential and partial solution to this problem is the Eco-Patent Commons run by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.  The Commons is a public pool of patents that holders have donated for the public good.  The initiative is small at the moment, and participation driven mostly by altruism or public image.  But perhaps similar schemes will be developed that provide other incentives for joining, such as cash payouts, tax breaks, or geographical limits so that the patent remains in force in, say, the US, but is open to anyone in sub-Saharan Africa.

Aid to developing countries is a big deal.  They need it, and, quite frankly, we need to give it to them if we want more than a snowball’s chance to solve the climate crisis.  As always, aid programs must be developed intelligently and in conjunction with the intended recipients.  Good governance and oversight are paramount to ensure that what funds are provided are used with maximum efficiency.  We have had mixed success with poverty alleviation programs; hopefully we will keep past experience in mind and the learning curve for climate change mitigation and adaptation programs will be steeper.

Gropenhagen, Part 2

Last time I wrote about the differing positions between the developed and developing countries when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Today’s issue is…

The First Mover Problem

This issue is fairly common in negotiations of all stripes.  Depending on the nature of the negotiation, the party that goes first either anchors the negotiation in its favor (as in a salary negotiation, for example) or gives away valuable information and weakens its position.  As noted last time, developed nations are concerned that reducing CO2 emissions and switching over to a less carbon-intensive economy will be expensive and hurt their competitiveness.  The deeper the cuts, the greater the adverse effects (we’re ignoring, of course, the many associated benefits).  Nations are therefore reluctant to be the first to commit to any measurable target, fearing they will be put at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their competitors. This problem has manifested in a few ways.

First of all, ambiguity reigns.  Obama, for example, can’t give even a ballpark percentage for U.S. CO2 reductions without knowing what can get through Congress.  China has pledged to reduce emissions growth (not emissions themselves) by a “notable margin,” signaling a general willingness to play ball without actually committing to anything.  It’s very hard to negotiate if no one is willing to negotiate.

We’re also seeing a lot of conditional targets.  The EU says it will reduce its emissions by 20% relative to 1990 levels by 2020, but is willing to up that to 30% if other countries commit to “significant reductions”.  Japan has made its reduction plan conditional on commitments by China and India.  Countries get to put some information out there while protecting themselves and hedging the risks.  This is a creative way to deal with the issue,  and it may prove to be very effective in achieving breakthroughs.

Perhaps most importantly, opponents of CO2 reductions are using the uncertainty created by the negotiating difficulties to push their own action-delaying agenda.  One of the biggest obstacles to legislation in the U.S. is the specter of China; certain legislators want pledges from China before we commit to any targets.  Here is a November 17, 2009 quote from Republican Senator Charles Grassley:

“You mean it’s not the failure of the People’s Assembly in China or the Parliament of India to pass laws cutting down on CO2, it’s only America’s fault, blame America first?”

Yes, I pretty much agree with that.  The Senator may have been employing the rhetorical device known as sarcasm, but in a surprise twist, I am not.  America does not play the victim well.  It doesn’t suit us and hasn’t suited us since, oh, about 1815.  The fact is that we are in the best position to make the first move because of our unique geopolitical standing and significant wealth.  But being the first mover doesn’t have to be a disadvantage.  We need to re-frame the issue so that moving first affords us advantages rather than putting us in a weaker position.  If we commit to a target, others will, too.  Some will commit to larger reductions (which is great for the planet and might just spark a bit of rivalry in this competition-obsessed country).  Will others will commit to lower targets?  Sure, but then we can push them to do more or just shame them and call them names.  My belief is that the gains that countries believe they will enjoy by cutting emissions less than their neighbors will prove illusory over time anyway.  The most important thing is to get the ball rolling.  And who plays with more balls than America?

Gropenhagen, Part 1

By now you’ve likely heard about the big international conference in Copenhagen coming up in December.  Officially dubbed the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 (and also known as COP 15 because it is the 15th Conference of the Parties), the goal of the event is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto treaty which expires in 2012.  Well, actually, that was the goal until a few months ago.  Now the goal is to come up with something – anything – that can be construed as progress towards a meaningful successor to Kyoto.  Hopenhagen is dim, but nopenhagen is not inevitable.  Just get out your soap-on-a-ropenhagen and don’t mopenhagen.  Over my next few posts, I’ll discuss some of the major issues causing all the fuss and give you some scope…enhagen.

Allocation of Emissions Reductions

Nearly everyone agrees that we must drastically reduce our collective CO2 emissions.  Nearly everyone disagrees on who specifically should be cutting emissions and by how much.  On the one hand is the developed world, which includes the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, and on the other is the developing world, which includes China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and pretty much everywhere else.

The developing world believes it has the moral high ground in this debate.  It is home to 5.7 of the 6.7 billion people currently on the planet.  Many of these people are poor (living on less than $2 a day), and their per capita CO2 emissions are minuscule when compared to people in the developed world.  The average American emits 19 tonnes of CO2 per year.  The average Chinese is responsible for only 4.6 tonnes per year, and even that is high when compared to rates in much of Africa, which are on the order of 1 tonne per year.  The vast majority of the stock of the CO2 in the atmosphere today is the result of industrialization in the rich world.  As a result, the developing nations believe, the developed world should clean up the mess it made.  China, India, and the rest, they argue, must put economic development first and prioritize bringing as many of their citizens as possible out of poverty.  The developed world was able to become rich by emitting CO2; the developing world should be give the same opportunity.

Like a fatty piece of meat, this moral argument is difficult for me to swallow fully.  In my last post, I showed that global warming has a decently long scientific history.  While this is true, a solid consensus that global warming was both caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and would increase the risks of catastrophic sea level rise, droughts, and other extreme weather (which by all accounts will affect the developing world far more than the developed world) did not emerge until more recently.  Just as it seems unfair to treat all countries as having contributed equally to CO2 stocks, so it seems unfair to lay blame on the developed world for emissions made in complete ignorance of the future effects.  Nonetheless, the developed world has a moral obligation to lead and make the deepest cuts simply by virtue of its relative ability to do so.  By that I mean the developed world should do more because it can afford to do more, and it is in its best interests to do more so that more gets done.  The moral obligation stems primarily from the present rather the past.  Live in the now!

The developed nations acknowledge that they must make the biggest cuts, but they believe that the developing nations must also make cuts to their own emissions.  The justification for this position is two-fold.  The first concerns trade and is an echo of what we’ve been hearing for years from populist politicians and union leaders.  If we cut emissions and they don’t, our industry will be at a huge disadvantage.  Running a business will become more expensive.  Polluting industries will relocate to more permissive countries and take their jobs with them.  The trade balance (the different between exports and imports) will worsen and we’ll become ever more indebted to foreign creditors.  Indeed, this position is often the basis of arguments by opponents of any emissions reductions at all.  My take?  I will certainly be addressing more specifics in later posts, but in brief, this position is short-sighted, inaccurate, irresponsible, and stupid – something you might hear on Fox News or CSPAN.

The second justification for developing nations to join in cutting emissions is more reasonable.  The developing world is the driver of future economic growth, and hence future CO2 flows.  Before the recent economic downturn, China had GDP growth of about 8-9% a year, and India’s rate was not much lower.  Wealthy nation’s growth has normally hovered around 1%-3%.  China is already the largest emitter of CO2, accounting for 21.5% of all energy-related emissions, and is poised to increase this proportion significantly under “business as usual” conditions.  In comparison, the U.S. accounts for 20%, albeit with less than one quarter of China’s population.  Nature, however, doesn’t care.  It doesn’t care who is responsible for past emissions (stocks) or future emissions (flows).  It doesn’t care how much each person emits relative to another.  It doesn’t care if an economy grows or shrinks.  The risks brought about by climate change are the same, regardless.  If the emerging markets’ emissions are left to grow unchecked, all efforts by the developed world will count for nothing.

So that is issue numero uno.  Coming to a viable compromise will be very difficult.  But I believe a lot of progress can be made as a result of decent commitments by the United States.  Next time I’ll talk about the “first mover problem” and why the U.S. position is a linchpin for progress and pushing us off our current downward slope…enhagen.