Top Climate Scientist: Tax Fossil Fuels to Save Younger Generations' Future
commondreams.org, 4 October 2016, by Nadia Prupis
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/04/top-climate-scientist-tax-fossil-fuels-save-younger-generations-future
This article summarizes a paper recently published by James Hansen and eleven others (original paper at http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-42/). Hansen (a well-known climate scientist and activist) and his co-authors are concerned with the long view: the consequences of our present climate and energy policies for future generations. The goal of holding global temperature rise to 1.5°C is rapidly slipping out of our grasp, and the Paris climate accords are "unlikely to bring about substantial change", according to Hansen. As a result, "negative emissions" technologies that remove CO2 from the atmosphere will likely need to be employed at a very large scale in the future to keep the climate within safe bounds. These technologies are unproven, however, and even if it is possible to deploy them on a sufficiently large scale, they will likely be extraordinarily expensive. Hansen's recommendation, to deal with this situation, is to "make the price of fossil fuels honest" – "stop subsidizing them", and "make them pay their cost to society", so that we can "phase out carbon emissions over the next few decades."
My take: These ideas are not new, but they are clearly stated here, which makes this article (and the paper by Hansen et al.) a welcome contribution. Our actions now create obligations and debts for future generations; if they want to keep the climate within historical bounds, they will have to take drastic, expensive action, and the longer we delay now, the more drastic and expensive that future action will have to be. Many climate projections now assume that "negative emissions" technologies will exist in the future that will offset our future emissions (the Paris accords assume this, for example), but of course those technologies do not presently exist, and our best estimate is that they will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to implement in the future. The fact that we do not presently have a tax on carbon emissions should properly be viewed as a subsidy; it means that fossil fuel prices are not "honest", in that they do not reflect the negative consequences that burning of fossil fuels has for everyone on the planet (a "negative externality", in economic jargon). Instituting a carbon tax is therefore really removing a subsidy and creating a level playing field among energy technologies – something that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians should all be able to agree makes sense. The alternative is to pass on an enormous problem to our children and our grandchildren – a problem so large that it will define their entire world.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Monday, August 29, 2016
Is blue the new green? Wave power could revolutionize the renewable-energy game
Is blue the new green? Wave power could revolutionize the renewable-energy game
Salon, 27 August 2016, by Diane Stopyra
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/27/is-blue-the-new-green-wave-power-could-revolutionize-the-renewable-energy-game/
This article discusses progress in wave power: technology to capture the energy in ocean waves, turning waves into a renewable energy source just like solar and wind power. And there has been progress. The U.S. Department of Energy has just announced a $40 million grant to develop an open-water wave energy test facility (the first in the U.S.), and new wave-energy systems in Hawaii and Australia have been generating energy and making headlines. The energy potential of waves is vast; the article says that waves along the U.S. coast could power 200 million homes (a DoE estimate), and the world's oceans could supply more energy than total human energy requirements (an IPCC estimate). Although it also cites some prominent setbacks – the closure of Pelamis, the first commercial wind farm, after only two months of operation, for example – it nevertheless says "we could be on the cusp of a tidal change", and encourages the reader to "imagine no need for coal, fossil fuels, nuclear generators, solar arrays or wind turbines" because wave power could supply all of our energy.
My take: This is complicated, so I will write a bit more than usual. First of all, I am in favor of research on wave power. $40 million is a drop in the bucket to research what might turn out to be an important technology. My preferred overall energy policy, staring into the teeth of climate change, is "Forward in all directions!" (the slogan of 3 Mustaphas 3). In other words, research every promising technology, from wave power to nuclear, fusion to CCS (carbon capture and sequestration). That said, I am deeply skeptical that wave energy will ever be more than a tiny contributor. It might seem straightforward – just a simple mechanical engineering problem! – but our attempts at it have failed for more than a hundred years. As the article notes, seawater is highly corrosive, and has a way of destroying moving parts quite rapidly. It is also quite difficult to build something designed to absorb wave energy, but that is robust enough not to be destroyed by big storms; big waves contain a truly staggering amount of energy, all directed toward mangling the wave-power device that stands in their way. The simple, sad fact is that the new crop of wave power experiments will probably fail, just as all previous experiments have. It's a lovely idea, but there are good reasons it has never been commercially successful.
I would also note that the potential energy stats quoted by the article are misleading. The DoE estimate quoted is a theoretical maximum potential (if every bit of every wave's energy were captured); the same DoE document gives a technical maximum potential (how much we think we could ever conceivably capture) that is less than half as large. Similarly, the IPCC estimate quoted includes all wave energy across the whole ocean; but they make clear that the energy available near coastlines, where it would actually be practical and economical to harvest it, is much lower and is quite unevenly distributed around the world (see the map on page 88 of the referenced IPCC report). This means that while some coastal areas (the Pacific coast of the U.S., for example) look fairly good for wave power, other areas (the Atlantic coast, for example) are much less promising. And of course to get the power from where it is generated offshore to all of the homes that it is supposed to power would require electrical grid capacity and technology well beyond what we have today, and would entail very large long-distance transmission losses. These are non-trivial problems.
The other problem, which the article doesn't touch on at all, is the environmental impact of wave power. Imagine what our coastlines would look like if we actually built wave-power generators all along them, encircling all of the continents. What would that do to marine life – to whales, to fish, to dolphins? What would it do to human activities that depend on the oceans, from fishing to shipping to sailing? What would it do to sediment transport, to beaches, to water clarity? What would it do to nutrient cycling in the ocean, which is driven by waves, and what effect would that then have on marine biological productivity? We don't have enough information right now to know, but it seems safe to guess that the impacts would be very large – one cannot fill the coasts with large mechanical equipment, and remove a large fraction of all the wave energy in coastal areas around the world, and think that there would not be a staggeringly large impact, it seems to me. I think this is the final nail in the coffin for wave energy on large scales. It may make sense to develop it in local areas where the potential wave energy is particularly high, however, and in any case we don't know enough about the environmental impact to pull the plug on it yet. Just enough to be very pessimistic.
Salon, 27 August 2016, by Diane Stopyra
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/27/is-blue-the-new-green-wave-power-could-revolutionize-the-renewable-energy-game/
This article discusses progress in wave power: technology to capture the energy in ocean waves, turning waves into a renewable energy source just like solar and wind power. And there has been progress. The U.S. Department of Energy has just announced a $40 million grant to develop an open-water wave energy test facility (the first in the U.S.), and new wave-energy systems in Hawaii and Australia have been generating energy and making headlines. The energy potential of waves is vast; the article says that waves along the U.S. coast could power 200 million homes (a DoE estimate), and the world's oceans could supply more energy than total human energy requirements (an IPCC estimate). Although it also cites some prominent setbacks – the closure of Pelamis, the first commercial wind farm, after only two months of operation, for example – it nevertheless says "we could be on the cusp of a tidal change", and encourages the reader to "imagine no need for coal, fossil fuels, nuclear generators, solar arrays or wind turbines" because wave power could supply all of our energy.
My take: This is complicated, so I will write a bit more than usual. First of all, I am in favor of research on wave power. $40 million is a drop in the bucket to research what might turn out to be an important technology. My preferred overall energy policy, staring into the teeth of climate change, is "Forward in all directions!" (the slogan of 3 Mustaphas 3). In other words, research every promising technology, from wave power to nuclear, fusion to CCS (carbon capture and sequestration). That said, I am deeply skeptical that wave energy will ever be more than a tiny contributor. It might seem straightforward – just a simple mechanical engineering problem! – but our attempts at it have failed for more than a hundred years. As the article notes, seawater is highly corrosive, and has a way of destroying moving parts quite rapidly. It is also quite difficult to build something designed to absorb wave energy, but that is robust enough not to be destroyed by big storms; big waves contain a truly staggering amount of energy, all directed toward mangling the wave-power device that stands in their way. The simple, sad fact is that the new crop of wave power experiments will probably fail, just as all previous experiments have. It's a lovely idea, but there are good reasons it has never been commercially successful.
I would also note that the potential energy stats quoted by the article are misleading. The DoE estimate quoted is a theoretical maximum potential (if every bit of every wave's energy were captured); the same DoE document gives a technical maximum potential (how much we think we could ever conceivably capture) that is less than half as large. Similarly, the IPCC estimate quoted includes all wave energy across the whole ocean; but they make clear that the energy available near coastlines, where it would actually be practical and economical to harvest it, is much lower and is quite unevenly distributed around the world (see the map on page 88 of the referenced IPCC report). This means that while some coastal areas (the Pacific coast of the U.S., for example) look fairly good for wave power, other areas (the Atlantic coast, for example) are much less promising. And of course to get the power from where it is generated offshore to all of the homes that it is supposed to power would require electrical grid capacity and technology well beyond what we have today, and would entail very large long-distance transmission losses. These are non-trivial problems.
The other problem, which the article doesn't touch on at all, is the environmental impact of wave power. Imagine what our coastlines would look like if we actually built wave-power generators all along them, encircling all of the continents. What would that do to marine life – to whales, to fish, to dolphins? What would it do to human activities that depend on the oceans, from fishing to shipping to sailing? What would it do to sediment transport, to beaches, to water clarity? What would it do to nutrient cycling in the ocean, which is driven by waves, and what effect would that then have on marine biological productivity? We don't have enough information right now to know, but it seems safe to guess that the impacts would be very large – one cannot fill the coasts with large mechanical equipment, and remove a large fraction of all the wave energy in coastal areas around the world, and think that there would not be a staggeringly large impact, it seems to me. I think this is the final nail in the coffin for wave energy on large scales. It may make sense to develop it in local areas where the potential wave energy is particularly high, however, and in any case we don't know enough about the environmental impact to pull the plug on it yet. Just enough to be very pessimistic.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
B.C.'s climate plan: What you need to know
B.C.'s climate plan: What you need to know
The Globe and Mail, 19 August 2016, by James Keller
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bcs-climate-plan-five-charts-that-explain-thedebate/article31466056/
This article details the latest developments in British Columbia (Canada) regarding the government's efforts to combat climate change. BC adopted a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008, and that tax was scheduled to rise annually in order to create increasing pressure for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In 2012, however, the price was frozen at CAD $30/ton (about US $23/ton), and there it has stood ever since. Perhaps as a result of that, emissions in BC are climbing, and it is now acknowledged that BC will miss its previously set emissions target for 2020. An expert panel formed by the BC government recommended last year that the carbon price be unfrozen again, and that specific greenhouse gas reduction targets be set for 2030 and 2050, so as to make progress on climate change goals. The BC government has just announced their new climate plan, and it implements neither of those suggestions; it calls for the carbon price to remain frozen, and for a weaker emissions target than recommended by the panel (no target at all for 2030, in fact). The new climate plan does include plans to decrease methane leaks, similar to what the U.S. is presently planning, and a number of other measures intended to reduce emissions. Nevertheless, the reaction to the plan in the environmental community has been uniformly negative, with the Sierra Club calling the plan "fraud".
My take: This is deeply, deeply disappointing. The whole world has been watching British Columbia's experiment in carbon pricing, because they are one of a handful of places to institute a broad-based carbon tax rather than a cap-and-trade scheme or taxes only on specific products or activities (such as a gasoline tax). Indeed, the Carbon Tax Center (carbontax.org) calls BC's tax "the most comprehensive and transparent carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere, if not the world". BC has thus been a leading light for the movement. And initially BC's experiment seemed successful; emissions went down, and economic activity did not seem to be harmed – perhaps it even benefited. Nevertheless, their carbon price was frozen for political reasons, and now their emissions are climbing again as the market responds to the shift in incentives. I had hoped that the recent political turnover in Canada, from Harper to Trudeau, would facilitate a renewal of BC's commitment to their carbon tax; but apparently not. Those of us pushing for a meaningful carbon tax in the U.S. and around the world should look closely at BC as an example of how politics can interfere even after a tax is passed; we should devote more thought to the problem of how to safeguard a carbon tax from political interference after passage, I suspect. I've written before about the political difficulties of implementing a carbon tax; see here and here. This article provides a clear case study in these difficulties.
The Globe and Mail, 19 August 2016, by James Keller
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bcs-climate-plan-five-charts-that-explain-thedebate/article31466056/
This article details the latest developments in British Columbia (Canada) regarding the government's efforts to combat climate change. BC adopted a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008, and that tax was scheduled to rise annually in order to create increasing pressure for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In 2012, however, the price was frozen at CAD $30/ton (about US $23/ton), and there it has stood ever since. Perhaps as a result of that, emissions in BC are climbing, and it is now acknowledged that BC will miss its previously set emissions target for 2020. An expert panel formed by the BC government recommended last year that the carbon price be unfrozen again, and that specific greenhouse gas reduction targets be set for 2030 and 2050, so as to make progress on climate change goals. The BC government has just announced their new climate plan, and it implements neither of those suggestions; it calls for the carbon price to remain frozen, and for a weaker emissions target than recommended by the panel (no target at all for 2030, in fact). The new climate plan does include plans to decrease methane leaks, similar to what the U.S. is presently planning, and a number of other measures intended to reduce emissions. Nevertheless, the reaction to the plan in the environmental community has been uniformly negative, with the Sierra Club calling the plan "fraud".
My take: This is deeply, deeply disappointing. The whole world has been watching British Columbia's experiment in carbon pricing, because they are one of a handful of places to institute a broad-based carbon tax rather than a cap-and-trade scheme or taxes only on specific products or activities (such as a gasoline tax). Indeed, the Carbon Tax Center (carbontax.org) calls BC's tax "the most comprehensive and transparent carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere, if not the world". BC has thus been a leading light for the movement. And initially BC's experiment seemed successful; emissions went down, and economic activity did not seem to be harmed – perhaps it even benefited. Nevertheless, their carbon price was frozen for political reasons, and now their emissions are climbing again as the market responds to the shift in incentives. I had hoped that the recent political turnover in Canada, from Harper to Trudeau, would facilitate a renewal of BC's commitment to their carbon tax; but apparently not. Those of us pushing for a meaningful carbon tax in the U.S. and around the world should look closely at BC as an example of how politics can interfere even after a tax is passed; we should devote more thought to the problem of how to safeguard a carbon tax from political interference after passage, I suspect. I've written before about the political difficulties of implementing a carbon tax; see here and here. This article provides a clear case study in these difficulties.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
How a new source of water is helping reduce conflict in the Middle East
How a new source of water is helping reduce conflict in the Middle East
Ensia, 19 July 2016, by Rowan Jacobsen
http://ensia.com/features/how-a-new-source-of-water-is-helping-reduce-conflict-in-the-middle-east/
"The desalination era is here." A fascinating article that describes how Israel has embraced desalination on a large scale, resulting in a water surplus in the heart of a drought-ridden region (thanks also to aggressive conservation and reuse programs far beyond those in other countries). Technological advances have improved desal's practicality and efficiency greatly, and 55% of Israel's water now comes from desalination. Furthermore, Israel is starting to collaborate with neighboring countries to spread the technology throughout the region. It is often suggested that water shortages due to climate change will cause conflict and war (as seems perhaps to have happened in Syria). But this article suggests that it can also be a goad toward greater co-operation and interdependence that could lead to peace.
My take: Overall this seems like excellent news. If we can use desalination to take the pressure off of our overstressed freshwater sources – many of which are already in decline due to excessive withdrawals and/or climate change – that is all to the good. What worries me about the desalination boom, which this article doesn't really discuss, is that it will substantially increase energy demand, undermining our efforts to get off of fossil fuels. The article says desal is about 1/3 as expensive as it was in the 1990s, and I guess that implies it is also more energy-efficient than it used to be; nevertheless, if countries bigger than Israel start relying on desal on a large scale, it will increase energy demand enormously. If achieving water security in the age of climate change requires a massive buildout of desal plants, that may spell big trouble for our energy policy and our greenhouse emissions. Nevertheless, efficient and practical desalination is a key technological advance needed to get us through the coming century, and it is heartening to hear that progress is being made on it – and that that is leading to co-operation among nations.
Ensia, 19 July 2016, by Rowan Jacobsen
http://ensia.com/features/how-a-new-source-of-water-is-helping-reduce-conflict-in-the-middle-east/
"The desalination era is here." A fascinating article that describes how Israel has embraced desalination on a large scale, resulting in a water surplus in the heart of a drought-ridden region (thanks also to aggressive conservation and reuse programs far beyond those in other countries). Technological advances have improved desal's practicality and efficiency greatly, and 55% of Israel's water now comes from desalination. Furthermore, Israel is starting to collaborate with neighboring countries to spread the technology throughout the region. It is often suggested that water shortages due to climate change will cause conflict and war (as seems perhaps to have happened in Syria). But this article suggests that it can also be a goad toward greater co-operation and interdependence that could lead to peace.
My take: Overall this seems like excellent news. If we can use desalination to take the pressure off of our overstressed freshwater sources – many of which are already in decline due to excessive withdrawals and/or climate change – that is all to the good. What worries me about the desalination boom, which this article doesn't really discuss, is that it will substantially increase energy demand, undermining our efforts to get off of fossil fuels. The article says desal is about 1/3 as expensive as it was in the 1990s, and I guess that implies it is also more energy-efficient than it used to be; nevertheless, if countries bigger than Israel start relying on desal on a large scale, it will increase energy demand enormously. If achieving water security in the age of climate change requires a massive buildout of desal plants, that may spell big trouble for our energy policy and our greenhouse emissions. Nevertheless, efficient and practical desalination is a key technological advance needed to get us through the coming century, and it is heartening to hear that progress is being made on it – and that that is leading to co-operation among nations.
Nuclear subsidies are key part of New York's clean-energy plan
Nuclear subsidies are key part of New York's clean-energy plan
New York Times, 20 July 2016, by Vivian Yee
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/nyregion/nuclear-subsidies-new-york-clean-energy-plan.html
My previous post discussed one angle on the "intermittency problem" posed by solar. This article exposes another angle on the same basic issue. New York plans to get half of its electricity from renewables – mostly solar and wind – by 2030. But if the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, that means that there will be half as much energy feeding into the grid as when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. This poses a problem. When the sun is shining, the cost of solar is getting remarkably low – so low that it undercuts other sources of power, rendering them unprofitable. But those other sources of power can't all be shut down; they are needed when the sun is not shining. The need for this "baseline power" that is available at any time means that as solar and wind increase their market share, something must be done to keep the baseline power economically viable. As renewables grow, we can let the dirtiest baseline plants fold – i.e., coal plants. But we can't let them all fold, even though they will all be rendered unprofitable due to the glut of cheap solar power during peak times. In particular, if we close nuclear plants (which are zero-emissions), we will just burn that much more natural gas, or perhaps even revert back to burning coal after all – and then we won't meet our climate goals. New York's response to this situation, as the article details, is apparently to subsidize the nuclear plants to keep them economic, but of course this is politically uncomfortable given the public's dislike of nuclear, as well as Exelon's near-monopoly position on New York's nuclear power. It smells like a corporate giveaway, and the politics of it have been handled poorly by the state, too.
My take: The problem is real. Cheap but intermittent renewables undercut the prices necessary to sustain the baseline power plants that we need, for the foreseeable future, to meet our power needs. Various solutions to this problem have been proposed, from charging solar generators an extra fee (effectively penalizing them for their intermittency), to subsidizing baseline plants so they remain economically viable; none is very satisfying. The most natural solution would be to let the market set prices freely throughout the day; prices near the solar peak would plummet toward zero, whereas prices off-peak would skyrocket (because the baseline plants would have to pay for themselves only by selling power during those off-peak times). This solution is generally seen as so undesirable that it is not seriously considered, since it would render both solar and non-solar plants economically precarious, and would probably raise overall energy costs considerably. So. New York will probably receive a lot of flak for giving money away to Exelon to support nuclear plants that aren't profitable on their own; but it is worth contemplating the reality of the energy market and asking what alternative solution you would actually prefer. If the nuclear plants close, that will be the final nail in the coffin for any hope of New York meeting its climate goals, since they supply about a third of all NY's power. Instead, we simply must find a way for solar and nuclear to "play nice" even though solar undercuts nuclear in cost. As with the problems examined in the previous post, these sorts of issues are why many analysts have trouble imagining intermittent renewables providing more than 50% of our power without major technological advances in batteries or long-distance transmission.
New York Times, 20 July 2016, by Vivian Yee
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/nyregion/nuclear-subsidies-new-york-clean-energy-plan.html
My previous post discussed one angle on the "intermittency problem" posed by solar. This article exposes another angle on the same basic issue. New York plans to get half of its electricity from renewables – mostly solar and wind – by 2030. But if the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, that means that there will be half as much energy feeding into the grid as when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. This poses a problem. When the sun is shining, the cost of solar is getting remarkably low – so low that it undercuts other sources of power, rendering them unprofitable. But those other sources of power can't all be shut down; they are needed when the sun is not shining. The need for this "baseline power" that is available at any time means that as solar and wind increase their market share, something must be done to keep the baseline power economically viable. As renewables grow, we can let the dirtiest baseline plants fold – i.e., coal plants. But we can't let them all fold, even though they will all be rendered unprofitable due to the glut of cheap solar power during peak times. In particular, if we close nuclear plants (which are zero-emissions), we will just burn that much more natural gas, or perhaps even revert back to burning coal after all – and then we won't meet our climate goals. New York's response to this situation, as the article details, is apparently to subsidize the nuclear plants to keep them economic, but of course this is politically uncomfortable given the public's dislike of nuclear, as well as Exelon's near-monopoly position on New York's nuclear power. It smells like a corporate giveaway, and the politics of it have been handled poorly by the state, too.
My take: The problem is real. Cheap but intermittent renewables undercut the prices necessary to sustain the baseline power plants that we need, for the foreseeable future, to meet our power needs. Various solutions to this problem have been proposed, from charging solar generators an extra fee (effectively penalizing them for their intermittency), to subsidizing baseline plants so they remain economically viable; none is very satisfying. The most natural solution would be to let the market set prices freely throughout the day; prices near the solar peak would plummet toward zero, whereas prices off-peak would skyrocket (because the baseline plants would have to pay for themselves only by selling power during those off-peak times). This solution is generally seen as so undesirable that it is not seriously considered, since it would render both solar and non-solar plants economically precarious, and would probably raise overall energy costs considerably. So. New York will probably receive a lot of flak for giving money away to Exelon to support nuclear plants that aren't profitable on their own; but it is worth contemplating the reality of the energy market and asking what alternative solution you would actually prefer. If the nuclear plants close, that will be the final nail in the coffin for any hope of New York meeting its climate goals, since they supply about a third of all NY's power. Instead, we simply must find a way for solar and nuclear to "play nice" even though solar undercuts nuclear in cost. As with the problems examined in the previous post, these sorts of issues are why many analysts have trouble imagining intermittent renewables providing more than 50% of our power without major technological advances in batteries or long-distance transmission.
Why home solar panels no longer pay in some states
Why home solar panels no longer pay in some states
New York Times, 26 July 2016, by Diane Cardwell
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/business/energy-environment/why-home-solar-panels-no-longer-pay-in-some-states.html
Energy policy analysts have been pointing out problems looming on the horizon for quite a while now. As solar's share of the energy market increases, various stresses are created that are difficult to cope with. One problem is that you begin to have a glut of energy when the sun is shining strongly, while developing a deficit at other times. This article shows that this "intermittency" problem is beginning to rear its ugly head. Utilities in high-solar-adoption states, such as PG&E in California, are changing their pricing models to charge consumers much more for off-peak power while paying them less for the power their solar panels send in to the grid during peak times. Consumers are discovering that their solar installations are no longer cost-effective and may never pay for themselves as a result. The same dynamics are playing out in Spain and Europe now, and are impacting states from Hawaii to Arizona.
My take: It is important to recognize that this is not the result of greed or backwardness on the part of the utilities; it is a simple consequence of the law of supply and demand. If the utilities did not decrease the price paid at peak solar times, they would be unable to sell all the power generated at those times. Conversely, if they did not raise the price at off-peak times, demand would outstrip the available supply, and brownouts or rolling blackouts would inevitably result. Fixing these issues is not simple. Power could be transported from areas with too much to areas with too little; but since day and night each cover half the globe at any given time, the distances involved are very large and power grids are not nearly up to the task at present (not to mention that large losses due to long-distance transmission would result). Power could be stored in batteries to be taken out later when the sun isn't shining; but the battery capacity needed to get a large region through a long period of overcast skies (much less a single night) is staggeringly large. Both of these options are immensely expensive, and these costs ought to be considered part of the cost of solar power, since it is solar's intermittency that creates the need for them. In short, today's technology gives us no good solution to the intermittency problem in general. This will limit how much market penetration will be possible for solar (and for wind, which has similar intermittency issues). Many analysts predict that about 50% is the maximum we could handle; the rest of our energy simply must come from "baseline" sources that can be turned on whenever they are needed: coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear. As this reality becomes more clear, we can expect subsidy programs such as generous feed-in tariffs to evaporate, as the article illustrates is already happening in many markets (even though we are still very far from 50% market penetration of renewables). As the article says, "Energy experts predict a bumpy transition." I'll write about another angle on this problem in a future post.
New York Times, 26 July 2016, by Diane Cardwell
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/business/energy-environment/why-home-solar-panels-no-longer-pay-in-some-states.html
Energy policy analysts have been pointing out problems looming on the horizon for quite a while now. As solar's share of the energy market increases, various stresses are created that are difficult to cope with. One problem is that you begin to have a glut of energy when the sun is shining strongly, while developing a deficit at other times. This article shows that this "intermittency" problem is beginning to rear its ugly head. Utilities in high-solar-adoption states, such as PG&E in California, are changing their pricing models to charge consumers much more for off-peak power while paying them less for the power their solar panels send in to the grid during peak times. Consumers are discovering that their solar installations are no longer cost-effective and may never pay for themselves as a result. The same dynamics are playing out in Spain and Europe now, and are impacting states from Hawaii to Arizona.
My take: It is important to recognize that this is not the result of greed or backwardness on the part of the utilities; it is a simple consequence of the law of supply and demand. If the utilities did not decrease the price paid at peak solar times, they would be unable to sell all the power generated at those times. Conversely, if they did not raise the price at off-peak times, demand would outstrip the available supply, and brownouts or rolling blackouts would inevitably result. Fixing these issues is not simple. Power could be transported from areas with too much to areas with too little; but since day and night each cover half the globe at any given time, the distances involved are very large and power grids are not nearly up to the task at present (not to mention that large losses due to long-distance transmission would result). Power could be stored in batteries to be taken out later when the sun isn't shining; but the battery capacity needed to get a large region through a long period of overcast skies (much less a single night) is staggeringly large. Both of these options are immensely expensive, and these costs ought to be considered part of the cost of solar power, since it is solar's intermittency that creates the need for them. In short, today's technology gives us no good solution to the intermittency problem in general. This will limit how much market penetration will be possible for solar (and for wind, which has similar intermittency issues). Many analysts predict that about 50% is the maximum we could handle; the rest of our energy simply must come from "baseline" sources that can be turned on whenever they are needed: coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear. As this reality becomes more clear, we can expect subsidy programs such as generous feed-in tariffs to evaporate, as the article illustrates is already happening in many markets (even though we are still very far from 50% market penetration of renewables). As the article says, "Energy experts predict a bumpy transition." I'll write about another angle on this problem in a future post.
If carbon pricing is so great, why isn't it working?
If carbon pricing is so great, why isn't it working?
Ensia, 12 July 2016, by Peter Fairley
http://ensia.com/features/if-carbon-pricing-is-so-great-why-isnt-it-working/
Carbon pricing is often touted – by the IMF, by CCL, by me – as the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and get climate change under control. Various carbon-pricing schemes are already in effect around the world, from "cap-and-trade" in Europe and the Northeast's RGGI to a carbon tax in British Columbia, and carbon pricing is under consideration in several more countries, including China and Brazil. And yet the carbon-pricing schemes we have seen so far have generally been failures, with prices on carbon so low as to be "virtually valueless" – usually below $15/ton, whereas it is estimated that $44/ton would be needed to achieve the Paris climate goals (as an average global target, I think?). This discrepancy is, the article argues, because "carbon pricing is as politically inexpedient as it is economically efficient". For cap-and-trade, this manifests in many ways: too many allowances allocated, too much acceptance of questionable carbon offsets, too much complexity and hidden exemptions. Carbon taxation schemes avoid most of these pitfalls, and BC's tax of $23/ton has led to some emissions reductions, but the price remains too low, and taxes are more politically difficult to achieve than cap-and-trade schemes. Despite its success, BC's tax is unpopular and has been frozen since 2012; since Canada, with its very high emissions and dirty tar sands oil, is estimated to need a price of $124/ton to meet its ambitious Paris pledges, it is hard not to see the BC scheme, too, as a failure. As a result of this, support is growing for a more regulatory approach to climate change.
My take: I love Ensia. This is a really thoughtful and interesting article that challenged me as a staunch supporter of carbon pricing. I would not say that it actually changed my mind; I see so many serious problems with the regulatory approach to climate change that a carbon tax simply seems non-negotiable to me. As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This article should give pause to all carbon tax advocates given the serious doubts it raises about the viability of carbon pricing. However, those doubts are only about its political viability. The article raises no objections regarding the effectiveness of carbon taxation when properly implemented; indeed, the tax in BC is acknowledged to have reduced emissions substantially while perhaps even increasing economic growth in the region – until it was gutted. So my belief that a carbon tax is the solution remains undiminished; but my worries about the politics of getting there have increased. CCL's proposed fee-and-dividend scheme would start at a low price that would ratchet upward over time, which I imagine is a nod to political expediency since the necessary price could never pass at the outset. But BC's experience with a very similar scheme sounds a cautionary note: every time the price went up, there was a new round of kvetching, and soon the political pressure to freeze the increases was irresistible, and so the target price was never reached. I don't know what the solution is. Mostly I think our politicians need to be pushed to do what is necessary by a groundswell of public opinion that overwhelms the denialists and the special interests. Which is why I support CCL. But boy, this article depressed me.
Ensia, 12 July 2016, by Peter Fairley
http://ensia.com/features/if-carbon-pricing-is-so-great-why-isnt-it-working/
Carbon pricing is often touted – by the IMF, by CCL, by me – as the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and get climate change under control. Various carbon-pricing schemes are already in effect around the world, from "cap-and-trade" in Europe and the Northeast's RGGI to a carbon tax in British Columbia, and carbon pricing is under consideration in several more countries, including China and Brazil. And yet the carbon-pricing schemes we have seen so far have generally been failures, with prices on carbon so low as to be "virtually valueless" – usually below $15/ton, whereas it is estimated that $44/ton would be needed to achieve the Paris climate goals (as an average global target, I think?). This discrepancy is, the article argues, because "carbon pricing is as politically inexpedient as it is economically efficient". For cap-and-trade, this manifests in many ways: too many allowances allocated, too much acceptance of questionable carbon offsets, too much complexity and hidden exemptions. Carbon taxation schemes avoid most of these pitfalls, and BC's tax of $23/ton has led to some emissions reductions, but the price remains too low, and taxes are more politically difficult to achieve than cap-and-trade schemes. Despite its success, BC's tax is unpopular and has been frozen since 2012; since Canada, with its very high emissions and dirty tar sands oil, is estimated to need a price of $124/ton to meet its ambitious Paris pledges, it is hard not to see the BC scheme, too, as a failure. As a result of this, support is growing for a more regulatory approach to climate change.
My take: I love Ensia. This is a really thoughtful and interesting article that challenged me as a staunch supporter of carbon pricing. I would not say that it actually changed my mind; I see so many serious problems with the regulatory approach to climate change that a carbon tax simply seems non-negotiable to me. As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This article should give pause to all carbon tax advocates given the serious doubts it raises about the viability of carbon pricing. However, those doubts are only about its political viability. The article raises no objections regarding the effectiveness of carbon taxation when properly implemented; indeed, the tax in BC is acknowledged to have reduced emissions substantially while perhaps even increasing economic growth in the region – until it was gutted. So my belief that a carbon tax is the solution remains undiminished; but my worries about the politics of getting there have increased. CCL's proposed fee-and-dividend scheme would start at a low price that would ratchet upward over time, which I imagine is a nod to political expediency since the necessary price could never pass at the outset. But BC's experience with a very similar scheme sounds a cautionary note: every time the price went up, there was a new round of kvetching, and soon the political pressure to freeze the increases was irresistible, and so the target price was never reached. I don't know what the solution is. Mostly I think our politicians need to be pushed to do what is necessary by a groundswell of public opinion that overwhelms the denialists and the special interests. Which is why I support CCL. But boy, this article depressed me.
Future of natural gas hinges on stanching methane leaks
Future of natural gas hinges on stanching methane leaks
New York Times, 11 July 2016, by Clifford Krauss
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/business/energy-environment/future-of-natural-gas-hinges-on-stanching-methane-leaks.html
It probably won't come as news to readers here that methane leaks are a major issue with natural gas. This article discusses how that realization has dawned over the whole industry. As we shift from coal toward natural gas and renewables, the methane emitted as a byproduct of natural gas production and distribution has increased as well; the oil and gas industry may now be the biggest source of methane in the U.S. The short-term climate impact of this leaked methane is huge: equivalent to about 240 coal-fired plants, according to the Environmental Defense Fund. As a result, the EPA is getting more serious (and more rigorous) about measuring methane leaks, the BLM is working on rules to reduce methane leaks on public lands, and federal regulators are getting involved. Methane leaks call into question whether natural gas can play the role of a "bridge" while we wait for renewable energy production to spool up. Some companies are co-operating – reducing their emissions voluntarily, and trying to shape regulations in a way that works for them. Others are stonewalling and protesting that higher regulatory costs will put them out of business and push the country back toward coal. The viability of the natural gas industry, and the future of climate change, hangs in the balance.
My take: This is all true, although it would have been nice to see the NYT talking more about it back when the fracking boom was still young and regulation could have nipped the problem in the bud. And it would be nice to see them talking about it a bit more bluntly even now. For example, they fail to mention that the EPA has recently admitted that all of its methane leak estimates have been much too low in the past, and should all be revised upwards drastically; that is a major scandal that is strangely omitted from the article. Similarly, they fail to mention the huge methane leak in California recently – the largest in U.S. history! – which was a major embarrassment for the industry that called into question, for many, whether we will ever be able to trust the industry to act responsibly. The article also says that although an industry group aspires to hold leaks to 1% of total natural gas production, "some estimates put the current amount at nearly twice that level or more"; while that is literally true, since "twice that level or more" is open-ended, it fails to really convey two uncomfortable facts. One, our data collection on methane leakage has been so abysmally bad that nobody really has any precise idea how much is leaked, and credible estimates vary by nearly an order of magnitude; and two, some credible estimates put the leakage rate much higher than "nearly" 2%, with the IPCC, I believe, stating a median consensus of 2-3% (but again, nobody really has good enough data to know). All in all, then, this article strikes me as a softball. I personally think methane leakage is a manageable problem with better regulation (although I'm opposed to natural gas as a bridge fuel for other reasons); but we won't get that better regulation if we fail to take the issue seriously and fully acknowledge how badly we've handled it thus far.
New York Times, 11 July 2016, by Clifford Krauss
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/business/energy-environment/future-of-natural-gas-hinges-on-stanching-methane-leaks.html
It probably won't come as news to readers here that methane leaks are a major issue with natural gas. This article discusses how that realization has dawned over the whole industry. As we shift from coal toward natural gas and renewables, the methane emitted as a byproduct of natural gas production and distribution has increased as well; the oil and gas industry may now be the biggest source of methane in the U.S. The short-term climate impact of this leaked methane is huge: equivalent to about 240 coal-fired plants, according to the Environmental Defense Fund. As a result, the EPA is getting more serious (and more rigorous) about measuring methane leaks, the BLM is working on rules to reduce methane leaks on public lands, and federal regulators are getting involved. Methane leaks call into question whether natural gas can play the role of a "bridge" while we wait for renewable energy production to spool up. Some companies are co-operating – reducing their emissions voluntarily, and trying to shape regulations in a way that works for them. Others are stonewalling and protesting that higher regulatory costs will put them out of business and push the country back toward coal. The viability of the natural gas industry, and the future of climate change, hangs in the balance.
My take: This is all true, although it would have been nice to see the NYT talking more about it back when the fracking boom was still young and regulation could have nipped the problem in the bud. And it would be nice to see them talking about it a bit more bluntly even now. For example, they fail to mention that the EPA has recently admitted that all of its methane leak estimates have been much too low in the past, and should all be revised upwards drastically; that is a major scandal that is strangely omitted from the article. Similarly, they fail to mention the huge methane leak in California recently – the largest in U.S. history! – which was a major embarrassment for the industry that called into question, for many, whether we will ever be able to trust the industry to act responsibly. The article also says that although an industry group aspires to hold leaks to 1% of total natural gas production, "some estimates put the current amount at nearly twice that level or more"; while that is literally true, since "twice that level or more" is open-ended, it fails to really convey two uncomfortable facts. One, our data collection on methane leakage has been so abysmally bad that nobody really has any precise idea how much is leaked, and credible estimates vary by nearly an order of magnitude; and two, some credible estimates put the leakage rate much higher than "nearly" 2%, with the IPCC, I believe, stating a median consensus of 2-3% (but again, nobody really has good enough data to know). All in all, then, this article strikes me as a softball. I personally think methane leakage is a manageable problem with better regulation (although I'm opposed to natural gas as a bridge fuel for other reasons); but we won't get that better regulation if we fail to take the issue seriously and fully acknowledge how badly we've handled it thus far.
Another inconvenient truth: It's hard to agree how to fight climate change
Another inconvenient truth: It's hard to agree how to fight climate change
New York Times, 11 July 2016, by John Schwartz
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/science/climate-change-movement.html
As realization of the importance and urgency of climate change has spread, the environmental movement has splintered, as this article details. Being an environmentalist used to be simple: oppose pollution, support natural reserves, protect endangered species, hug trees. Now it's complicated. Should you be for nuclear power or against it? On the one hand, it's carbon-neutral and non-polluting (apart from that pesky nuclear waste); on the other hand, it entails risks that are frightening and hard to quantify, and is linked to proliferation of nuclear weapons. Similarly: is natural gas a good thing, at least as a "bridge", because it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal – or is it a bad thing, because it just puts off the necessary shift to carbon-neutral energy technologies (not to mention problems with methane leaks, aquifer pollution, and earthquakes)? Should we attack fossil fuel companies, divest from them, and essentially try to shut them down, or should we engage with them and try to shift them toward greener, more responsible policies through actions such as shareholder activism? Will effective action on climate change necessitate the dismantling of capitalism and a reversion of humanity to a simpler and more sustainable way of life, or is capitalism a necessary part of the solution because it provides us with price mechanisms and institutions we can manipulate to incentivize change? The debate on these difficult questions has become sharply polarized, and name-calling has become common. At the same time, the movement is becoming broader, with greater participation from conservatives, Republicans, religious groups, and corporations, leading to an even wider range of opinions and ideas. There's a lot to sort out, and it's hard to know which claims are evidence-based and which are propaganda. The article ends with quotes from Al Gore to the effect that such schisms in growing movements are typical and natural, and that perhaps these debates will soon settled by economics: the plunging cost of renewables will make debates over nuclear, natural gas, etc., irrelevant as solar and wind take over the energy market.
My take: The article makes no attempt to adjudicate these various debates – probably wise, since they are all very difficult questions with no easy answers. But the glaring hole in the article is that it barely mentions the concept of putting a price on carbon; it comes up only as an example of the nasty infighting between different environmentalists, as a battleground between the anti-capitalists like Naomi Klein and the pro-capitalists like Bill McKibben (although I'm not sure he would embrace quite that label). I wish I shared Al Gore's optimism that low prices for renewables will solve all our problems and make all these debates irrelevant; but I don't think it's that simple. We will need more than solar and wind to solve climate change (as I will look at a bit in some reviews coming up soon in my queue), and we will need a price on carbon to do it, too, I think; so the article's failure to really engage with that as one of the core debates in environmentalism today is disappointing to say the least. In the end, this is a pretty empty piece; it's not long enough to really get into the meat of any of the questions it raises, and its implicit endorsement of Gore's opinion that the debates are unimportant because solar and wind are about to solve everything is a simplistic cop-out. In fact, these debates are crucially important; we need to get all of these questions right or we will probably fail to avoid catastrophic climate change. The vitriol and partisanship may be unpleasant, but I'll take unpleasant, vitriolic debate any day over the past several decades of the media failing to delve any deeper into all this than "Is climate change real or not? Let's give equal time to both sides." The fact that we are arguing publicly now about details – science and evidence and policy and models and risk assessment and economics – that fact represents progress, and it gives me hope.
New York Times, 11 July 2016, by John Schwartz
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/science/climate-change-movement.html
As realization of the importance and urgency of climate change has spread, the environmental movement has splintered, as this article details. Being an environmentalist used to be simple: oppose pollution, support natural reserves, protect endangered species, hug trees. Now it's complicated. Should you be for nuclear power or against it? On the one hand, it's carbon-neutral and non-polluting (apart from that pesky nuclear waste); on the other hand, it entails risks that are frightening and hard to quantify, and is linked to proliferation of nuclear weapons. Similarly: is natural gas a good thing, at least as a "bridge", because it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal – or is it a bad thing, because it just puts off the necessary shift to carbon-neutral energy technologies (not to mention problems with methane leaks, aquifer pollution, and earthquakes)? Should we attack fossil fuel companies, divest from them, and essentially try to shut them down, or should we engage with them and try to shift them toward greener, more responsible policies through actions such as shareholder activism? Will effective action on climate change necessitate the dismantling of capitalism and a reversion of humanity to a simpler and more sustainable way of life, or is capitalism a necessary part of the solution because it provides us with price mechanisms and institutions we can manipulate to incentivize change? The debate on these difficult questions has become sharply polarized, and name-calling has become common. At the same time, the movement is becoming broader, with greater participation from conservatives, Republicans, religious groups, and corporations, leading to an even wider range of opinions and ideas. There's a lot to sort out, and it's hard to know which claims are evidence-based and which are propaganda. The article ends with quotes from Al Gore to the effect that such schisms in growing movements are typical and natural, and that perhaps these debates will soon settled by economics: the plunging cost of renewables will make debates over nuclear, natural gas, etc., irrelevant as solar and wind take over the energy market.
My take: The article makes no attempt to adjudicate these various debates – probably wise, since they are all very difficult questions with no easy answers. But the glaring hole in the article is that it barely mentions the concept of putting a price on carbon; it comes up only as an example of the nasty infighting between different environmentalists, as a battleground between the anti-capitalists like Naomi Klein and the pro-capitalists like Bill McKibben (although I'm not sure he would embrace quite that label). I wish I shared Al Gore's optimism that low prices for renewables will solve all our problems and make all these debates irrelevant; but I don't think it's that simple. We will need more than solar and wind to solve climate change (as I will look at a bit in some reviews coming up soon in my queue), and we will need a price on carbon to do it, too, I think; so the article's failure to really engage with that as one of the core debates in environmentalism today is disappointing to say the least. In the end, this is a pretty empty piece; it's not long enough to really get into the meat of any of the questions it raises, and its implicit endorsement of Gore's opinion that the debates are unimportant because solar and wind are about to solve everything is a simplistic cop-out. In fact, these debates are crucially important; we need to get all of these questions right or we will probably fail to avoid catastrophic climate change. The vitriol and partisanship may be unpleasant, but I'll take unpleasant, vitriolic debate any day over the past several decades of the media failing to delve any deeper into all this than "Is climate change real or not? Let's give equal time to both sides." The fact that we are arguing publicly now about details – science and evidence and policy and models and risk assessment and economics – that fact represents progress, and it gives me hope.
Exxon touts carbon tax to oil industry
Exxon touts carbon tax to oil industry
Wall St. Journal, 30 June 2016, by Amy Harder and Bradley Olson
http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-touts-carbon-tax-to-oil-industry-1467279004
This article (paywalled, unfortunately, but the WSJ has limited free access for 24 hours) discusses a recent shift in Exxon's public stance on climate change, from tacit support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax (since in their view other climate policy actions would be even worse) to actual public advocacy of such a tax, both on Capital Hill and in trade associations. The article notes that Exxon is under strong pressure to show more positive action regarding climate change, since it is under investigation for conspiring to cover up scientific research related to climate change. It also mentions that Exxon has a financial motive for supporting a carbon tax, since such a tax would hurt coal even more than oil and natural gas. In any case, with this shift Exxon joins European energy companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and BP that have been advocating for a price on carbon for some years, whereas other U.S. energy companies, such as Chevron, continue to publicly oppose a carbon tax.
My take: As the article notes (and it is nice to see this sort of balanced coverage in the WSJ), this shift actually serves Exxon's interests in various ways; it is not likely that Exxon has suddenly decided to value the fate of humanity over its own bottom line. However, I think this angle could be taken considerably further. The Union of Concerned Scientists has been fighting Exxon tooth and nail, as detailed on their blog (http://blog.ucsusa.org/tag/exxonclimatescandal), and Exxon has by no means given up the fight. At the same time that Exxon is talking a good game regarding carbon taxation, it continues to fund misinformation on climate change and to deny its past coverups of climate science (http://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/as-congress-calls-out-fossil-fuel-deception-exxonmobil-continues-to-fund-climate-science-denial). So it is difficult to see these shifts and maneuvers by Exxon as anything but self-interested greenwashing.
Wall St. Journal, 30 June 2016, by Amy Harder and Bradley Olson
http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-touts-carbon-tax-to-oil-industry-1467279004
This article (paywalled, unfortunately, but the WSJ has limited free access for 24 hours) discusses a recent shift in Exxon's public stance on climate change, from tacit support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax (since in their view other climate policy actions would be even worse) to actual public advocacy of such a tax, both on Capital Hill and in trade associations. The article notes that Exxon is under strong pressure to show more positive action regarding climate change, since it is under investigation for conspiring to cover up scientific research related to climate change. It also mentions that Exxon has a financial motive for supporting a carbon tax, since such a tax would hurt coal even more than oil and natural gas. In any case, with this shift Exxon joins European energy companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and BP that have been advocating for a price on carbon for some years, whereas other U.S. energy companies, such as Chevron, continue to publicly oppose a carbon tax.
My take: As the article notes (and it is nice to see this sort of balanced coverage in the WSJ), this shift actually serves Exxon's interests in various ways; it is not likely that Exxon has suddenly decided to value the fate of humanity over its own bottom line. However, I think this angle could be taken considerably further. The Union of Concerned Scientists has been fighting Exxon tooth and nail, as detailed on their blog (http://blog.ucsusa.org/tag/exxonclimatescandal), and Exxon has by no means given up the fight. At the same time that Exxon is talking a good game regarding carbon taxation, it continues to fund misinformation on climate change and to deny its past coverups of climate science (http://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/as-congress-calls-out-fossil-fuel-deception-exxonmobil-continues-to-fund-climate-science-denial). So it is difficult to see these shifts and maneuvers by Exxon as anything but self-interested greenwashing.
Last week's Democratic platform vote was a win for carbon taxes
Last week's Democratic platform vote was a win for carbon taxes
Carbon Tax Center, 29 July 2016, by Charles Komanoff
http://www.carbontax.org/blog/2016/06/29/last-weeks-democratic-platform-vote-was-a-win-for-carbon-taxes/
This missive from the glass-is-half-full camp claims that the Democratic Party's failure to adopt carbon taxation as a plank in its platform should actually be seen as a "win". The plank, proposed and drafted by activist Bill McKibben of 350.org, stated that CO2 and other greenhouse gases should be taxed at "a rate high enough" to allow the Paris 2015 climate goals to be reached. Although the plank was voted down, the article sees this as a positive development overall because (1) it got discussed by the party at all, (2) it lost by only a 7-6 vote, and (3) it was explicitly about a carbon tax, rather than just the more vague "price on carbon" that leaves the door open for carbon cap-and-trade schemes that the author feels are undesirable. All these things show that the idea of carbon taxation is entering the political mainstream.
My take: I actually agree with the article that it is surprising and heartening to see carbon taxation being taken so seriously by politicians. This is an unprecedented development, and we can certainly hope that it is a harbinger of things to come. However, since I am more of the glass-is-half-empty persuasion, let me just note a few contrary points. One, getting "fringe" ideas into a party platform is much easier than getting politicians to actually take action on those ideas. The party platform is, in the end, just talk; it's an opportunity for politicians to talk a good game without having to actually write legislation, make difficult votes, or buck big-money donors. Two, the plank, while well-meant, is rather strategically vague in its call for "a rate high enough" to achieve climate goals, with no hint as to what that rate might be – doubtless because the tax rate that would actually be necessary would be uncomfortably high, which even in the anodyne setting of the party platform would make it difficult for politicians to sign on. And three, if we can't get it into the platform even in this "perfect storm" election year, with record-breaking temperatures spurred by El Niño plus the Bernie surge and his pressure on the platform process, what hope do we have to pass it later – especially since Clinton's camp opposed this plank, as McKibben has described? But OK; I apologize for raining on the parade.
Carbon Tax Center, 29 July 2016, by Charles Komanoff
http://www.carbontax.org/blog/2016/06/29/last-weeks-democratic-platform-vote-was-a-win-for-carbon-taxes/
This missive from the glass-is-half-full camp claims that the Democratic Party's failure to adopt carbon taxation as a plank in its platform should actually be seen as a "win". The plank, proposed and drafted by activist Bill McKibben of 350.org, stated that CO2 and other greenhouse gases should be taxed at "a rate high enough" to allow the Paris 2015 climate goals to be reached. Although the plank was voted down, the article sees this as a positive development overall because (1) it got discussed by the party at all, (2) it lost by only a 7-6 vote, and (3) it was explicitly about a carbon tax, rather than just the more vague "price on carbon" that leaves the door open for carbon cap-and-trade schemes that the author feels are undesirable. All these things show that the idea of carbon taxation is entering the political mainstream.
My take: I actually agree with the article that it is surprising and heartening to see carbon taxation being taken so seriously by politicians. This is an unprecedented development, and we can certainly hope that it is a harbinger of things to come. However, since I am more of the glass-is-half-empty persuasion, let me just note a few contrary points. One, getting "fringe" ideas into a party platform is much easier than getting politicians to actually take action on those ideas. The party platform is, in the end, just talk; it's an opportunity for politicians to talk a good game without having to actually write legislation, make difficult votes, or buck big-money donors. Two, the plank, while well-meant, is rather strategically vague in its call for "a rate high enough" to achieve climate goals, with no hint as to what that rate might be – doubtless because the tax rate that would actually be necessary would be uncomfortably high, which even in the anodyne setting of the party platform would make it difficult for politicians to sign on. And three, if we can't get it into the platform even in this "perfect storm" election year, with record-breaking temperatures spurred by El Niño plus the Bernie surge and his pressure on the platform process, what hope do we have to pass it later – especially since Clinton's camp opposed this plank, as McKibben has described? But OK; I apologize for raining on the parade.
Canadian company turns air into fuel in climate change fight
Canadian company turns air into fuel in climate change fight
Huffington Post, 5 July 2016, by Dominique Mosbergen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carbon-capture-fuel_us_577a177ae4b0a629c1aa7669
Continuing in the vein of my recent posts about carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), this article discusses current efforts to capture CO2 directly out of the air, often called "direct air capture". This technology could be used to pressurize CO2 and store it underground (thereby taking it out of the atmosphere permanently, assuming it doesn't leak back out), or it could be used to turn the CO2 into fuel that can then be burned (a carbon-neutral process, in theory, since all the CO2 released by burning the fuel was originally captured from the air). In particular, the article touts a firm called Carbon Engineering that is taking the second approach. Carbon Engineering claims that it can capture CO2 for about $100/ton in its process, which involves splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combining the hydrogen with CO2 to produce fuel that they will ultimately sell at a profit for "about $4 to $6 a gallon". They claim that their process is scalable and could play a major role in combating climate change. They have the backing of Bill Gates and some other deep-pocketed individuals, and are presently building a pilot plant that they say will produce about 1000 barrels of fuel per day, while removing 100,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year (equivalent to the carbon footprint of about 25,000 vehicles, they say).
My take: Color me skeptical. Direct air capture has been discussed for decades, but it has always been way, way too expensive to be cost-effective, and nothing in this article convinces me that Carbon Engineering has cracked that problem. Even capturing CO2 directly from the emissions streams of coal and gas plants, where the CO2 is extremely concentrated, is very difficult to do efficiently and cost-effectively (as shown by the failure of the Kemper plant that I discussed in my previous post). Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, where its concentration is only about 0.04%, is much more difficult still. The fact that Gates is putting his money behind this tempers my skepticism somewhat – Gates is a smart man, whatever one might think of him – but since the article provides no technical details whatsoever regarding how Carbon Engineering has managed to cut the cost of direct air capture by an order of magnitude compared to previous attempts... well, I'm not betting on this technology being successful. I would also note that at $4-$6 per gallon and $100/ton CO2, even if their technology works they will have trouble selling it unless governments put a high price on carbon emissions. A carbon fee-and-dividend scheme would allow projects like this to be economically viable – if the technology actually works, that is.
Huffington Post, 5 July 2016, by Dominique Mosbergen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carbon-capture-fuel_us_577a177ae4b0a629c1aa7669
Continuing in the vein of my recent posts about carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), this article discusses current efforts to capture CO2 directly out of the air, often called "direct air capture". This technology could be used to pressurize CO2 and store it underground (thereby taking it out of the atmosphere permanently, assuming it doesn't leak back out), or it could be used to turn the CO2 into fuel that can then be burned (a carbon-neutral process, in theory, since all the CO2 released by burning the fuel was originally captured from the air). In particular, the article touts a firm called Carbon Engineering that is taking the second approach. Carbon Engineering claims that it can capture CO2 for about $100/ton in its process, which involves splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combining the hydrogen with CO2 to produce fuel that they will ultimately sell at a profit for "about $4 to $6 a gallon". They claim that their process is scalable and could play a major role in combating climate change. They have the backing of Bill Gates and some other deep-pocketed individuals, and are presently building a pilot plant that they say will produce about 1000 barrels of fuel per day, while removing 100,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year (equivalent to the carbon footprint of about 25,000 vehicles, they say).
My take: Color me skeptical. Direct air capture has been discussed for decades, but it has always been way, way too expensive to be cost-effective, and nothing in this article convinces me that Carbon Engineering has cracked that problem. Even capturing CO2 directly from the emissions streams of coal and gas plants, where the CO2 is extremely concentrated, is very difficult to do efficiently and cost-effectively (as shown by the failure of the Kemper plant that I discussed in my previous post). Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, where its concentration is only about 0.04%, is much more difficult still. The fact that Gates is putting his money behind this tempers my skepticism somewhat – Gates is a smart man, whatever one might think of him – but since the article provides no technical details whatsoever regarding how Carbon Engineering has managed to cut the cost of direct air capture by an order of magnitude compared to previous attempts... well, I'm not betting on this technology being successful. I would also note that at $4-$6 per gallon and $100/ton CO2, even if their technology works they will have trouble selling it unless governments put a high price on carbon emissions. A carbon fee-and-dividend scheme would allow projects like this to be economically viable – if the technology actually works, that is.
Piles of dirty secrets behind a model "clean coal" project
Piles of dirty secrets behind a model "clean coal" project
New York Times, 5 July 2016, by Ian Urbina
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html
This is a sad story of failure and fraud at the frontiers of clean energy research: the Kemper "clean coal" plant in Mississippi. The Kemper plant was supposed to capture the CO2 emitted from the combustion of coal, preventing its release into the atmosphere. The captured CO2 would then be pressurized, piped to oilfields, and pumped underground to facilitate the extraction of oil while simultaneously sequestering the CO2 underground (permanently, it is hoped). The plant was the U.S.'s big exploratory investment in this technology, called "carbon capture and sequestration" (CCS), and has been talked about as a "central piece" of Obama's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the plant is now more than $4 billion over budget, two years behind schedule, and is being sued for fraud by ratepayers and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission – and all this before it has even started operations. The Times has done some good investigative journalism here, detailing the saga in all its sordidness, including reviews of extensive documents provided by a whistleblower and interviews with many people on all sides of the situation. There is plenty of blame to be shared: corporate executives, government officials, and regulators all had a hand in mismanaging the plant and covering up the problems. Meanwhile, work on the plant continues, and ratepayers and taxpayers continue to foot the bill.
My take: This article serves as a counterpoint to the previous article I reviewed, on a carbon sequestration project in Iceland that appears to be wildly successful. This article illustrates the flip side of that: carbon sequestration is hard, most of our attempts at it have failed, it remains very expensive, and although the benefits of success in this arena would be immense (and thus we ought to keep trying), we cannot afford to assume that we will succeed. "Clean coal" has been a favorite mantra of the Obama administration, since it provides the possibility to have our cake and eat it too by being able to continue burning fossil fuels while avoiding the climate impact of the resulting CO2. But the failure of the Kemper plant underlines the unresolved problems with this technology, and the importance of developing alternatives for baseline power. This article also illustrates for me why having the government "pick winners" in energy and climate policy is dangerous. The amounts of money involved, and the political pressures at work, are staggeringly large, and so when a "winner" is picked by the government, the result is often – as with Kemper – regulatory capture, mismanagement, coverups, and ultimately bailouts. A carbon fee-and-divided scheme avoids these problems by changing the incentive structure (by incorporating the negative externalities of CO2 emissions into the price structure) and then allowing free market competition to arrive at the winners, whatever technologies they might be. Lots of important lessons to be learned here.
New York Times, 5 July 2016, by Ian Urbina
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html
This is a sad story of failure and fraud at the frontiers of clean energy research: the Kemper "clean coal" plant in Mississippi. The Kemper plant was supposed to capture the CO2 emitted from the combustion of coal, preventing its release into the atmosphere. The captured CO2 would then be pressurized, piped to oilfields, and pumped underground to facilitate the extraction of oil while simultaneously sequestering the CO2 underground (permanently, it is hoped). The plant was the U.S.'s big exploratory investment in this technology, called "carbon capture and sequestration" (CCS), and has been talked about as a "central piece" of Obama's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the plant is now more than $4 billion over budget, two years behind schedule, and is being sued for fraud by ratepayers and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission – and all this before it has even started operations. The Times has done some good investigative journalism here, detailing the saga in all its sordidness, including reviews of extensive documents provided by a whistleblower and interviews with many people on all sides of the situation. There is plenty of blame to be shared: corporate executives, government officials, and regulators all had a hand in mismanaging the plant and covering up the problems. Meanwhile, work on the plant continues, and ratepayers and taxpayers continue to foot the bill.
My take: This article serves as a counterpoint to the previous article I reviewed, on a carbon sequestration project in Iceland that appears to be wildly successful. This article illustrates the flip side of that: carbon sequestration is hard, most of our attempts at it have failed, it remains very expensive, and although the benefits of success in this arena would be immense (and thus we ought to keep trying), we cannot afford to assume that we will succeed. "Clean coal" has been a favorite mantra of the Obama administration, since it provides the possibility to have our cake and eat it too by being able to continue burning fossil fuels while avoiding the climate impact of the resulting CO2. But the failure of the Kemper plant underlines the unresolved problems with this technology, and the importance of developing alternatives for baseline power. This article also illustrates for me why having the government "pick winners" in energy and climate policy is dangerous. The amounts of money involved, and the political pressures at work, are staggeringly large, and so when a "winner" is picked by the government, the result is often – as with Kemper – regulatory capture, mismanagement, coverups, and ultimately bailouts. A carbon fee-and-divided scheme avoids these problems by changing the incentive structure (by incorporating the negative externalities of CO2 emissions into the price structure) and then allowing free market competition to arrive at the winners, whatever technologies they might be. Lots of important lessons to be learned here.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
In a first, Iceland power plant turns carbon emissions to stone
In a first, Iceland power plant turns carbon emissions to stone
Phys.org, 9 June 2016, no author given
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-climate-mitigation-co2.html
This is a report of ground-breaking – literally! – research recently published in the journal Science, claiming that pressurized CO2 pumped into basalt formations underground is rapidly absorbed, transforming the basalt into carbonate minerals that permanently lock the carbon into place. If true, this finding would substantially change the picture regarding “carbon capture and sequestration” (CCS), the storage of carbon dioxide emissions underground to prevent climate change. CCS is believed by many (such as the IPCC, in their latest report) to be crucial if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. This advance would allay fears that CO2 sequestered underground might leak back out into the atmosphere over time, since the CO2 would be tightly locked into permanent mineral structures. However, this technology requires large amounts of water to be pumped down as well – 25 tons of water per ton CO2, although seawater can be used. It is also possible that the carbonate minerals might get munched by bacteria that would release methane, perhaps completely reversing the benefits of CCS (or worse).
My take: This has the potential to be revolutionary, but it is important to take these kinds of early scientific results with a big grain of salt; a great deal more research is needed. Nevertheless, it is big news. It’s hard to see a path toward sustainability that does not involve CCS, since we rely so heavily on fossil fuels. It will be difficult to shift off of them completely; even if we manage to reach, say, 80% renewable energy (a very aggressive goal, for technical reasons such as intermittency), the remaining 20% use of fossil fuels would continue to drive atmospheric CO2 ever upward unless we master CCS. Indeed, the recent Paris Accord negotiations essentially assumed that some form of CCS would be used to offset a large fraction of future emissions. The problems with this new technology remain large, however. We presently emit about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year; this technology would thus require burying 1 trillion tons of water, which is 1000 cubic kilometers of water. Which is a lot of water, although it is only 0.000074% of the total volume of the ocean, if I have done my math right. The article also mentions the issue of cost, but not prominently enough, I think. Cost is the big problem that has plagued CCS for decades, because it takes a lot of energy to separate, compress, and inject waste CO2 underground. It is not clear that the new method improves on that, and so the cost of CCS may remain prohibitive even with this advance – unless, that is, some form of carbon taxation shifts the cost-benefit analysis by increasing the cost to companies of simply releasing waste CO2 into the atmosphere. But the cost of CCS may be even higher than the “social cost of carbon”, and so even with this technology a carbon tax might have to be set “too high” – higher than the actual damage done by CO2 – before CCS would start to make economic sense. So, in short: be excited, but remain calm.
Phys.org, 9 June 2016, no author given
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-climate-mitigation-co2.html
This is a report of ground-breaking – literally! – research recently published in the journal Science, claiming that pressurized CO2 pumped into basalt formations underground is rapidly absorbed, transforming the basalt into carbonate minerals that permanently lock the carbon into place. If true, this finding would substantially change the picture regarding “carbon capture and sequestration” (CCS), the storage of carbon dioxide emissions underground to prevent climate change. CCS is believed by many (such as the IPCC, in their latest report) to be crucial if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. This advance would allay fears that CO2 sequestered underground might leak back out into the atmosphere over time, since the CO2 would be tightly locked into permanent mineral structures. However, this technology requires large amounts of water to be pumped down as well – 25 tons of water per ton CO2, although seawater can be used. It is also possible that the carbonate minerals might get munched by bacteria that would release methane, perhaps completely reversing the benefits of CCS (or worse).
My take: This has the potential to be revolutionary, but it is important to take these kinds of early scientific results with a big grain of salt; a great deal more research is needed. Nevertheless, it is big news. It’s hard to see a path toward sustainability that does not involve CCS, since we rely so heavily on fossil fuels. It will be difficult to shift off of them completely; even if we manage to reach, say, 80% renewable energy (a very aggressive goal, for technical reasons such as intermittency), the remaining 20% use of fossil fuels would continue to drive atmospheric CO2 ever upward unless we master CCS. Indeed, the recent Paris Accord negotiations essentially assumed that some form of CCS would be used to offset a large fraction of future emissions. The problems with this new technology remain large, however. We presently emit about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year; this technology would thus require burying 1 trillion tons of water, which is 1000 cubic kilometers of water. Which is a lot of water, although it is only 0.000074% of the total volume of the ocean, if I have done my math right. The article also mentions the issue of cost, but not prominently enough, I think. Cost is the big problem that has plagued CCS for decades, because it takes a lot of energy to separate, compress, and inject waste CO2 underground. It is not clear that the new method improves on that, and so the cost of CCS may remain prohibitive even with this advance – unless, that is, some form of carbon taxation shifts the cost-benefit analysis by increasing the cost to companies of simply releasing waste CO2 into the atmosphere. But the cost of CCS may be even higher than the “social cost of carbon”, and so even with this technology a carbon tax might have to be set “too high” – higher than the actual damage done by CO2 – before CCS would start to make economic sense. So, in short: be excited, but remain calm.
Why Isn't Anyone Lobbying For Climate Change?
Why Isn't Anyone Lobbying For Climate Change?
Forbes, 7 June 2016, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/06/07/lobby-climate-change-failure/#741962d569d3
This is an interesting piece by a sitting Senator, speaking frankly about how lobbying works inside the halls of Congress. The question he asks is simple: why don’t companies lobby for action on climate change? Even companies with a stated progressive attitude on climate change, such as Apple, Google, and Coca-Cola, don’t lobby on the issue at all; likewise with companies that directly lose money due to climate change, such as the logging industry (which has lost huge swathes of timber stands to beetle damage and forest fires) and the insurance industry (which pays out big bucks with every hurricane and flood). So, why? Sen. Whitehouse gives two reasons. First, lobbying organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have “all been coopted by fossil fuel interests” and fail to represent the companies that pay them, when it comes to lobbying on climate change. Indeed, Whitehouse calls the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is particularly egregious here, the “U.S. Chamber of Carbon”. Second, corporations are afraid of retribution; the Republican Party is, he says, so “intertwined” with fossil fuels that companies fear their wrath were they to act politically on climate change. Whitehouse ends on an upbeat note, citing the recent gathering of many American companies in support of a strong climate deal in the Paris Accords (as covered by another article I recently summarized); he says this group may be “too big to punish” and may thus herald a sea change.
My take: My impression is that Senator Whitehouse is being reasonably honest and direct here. I don’t agree with the way that he singles out the Republicans as being the crux of the problem; we have seen precious little real effort from the Democrats on climate change, too, although they are more willing to at least talk a good game. But overall I think what he says is true; lobbying organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce have been captured by the fossil fuel industry, and corporations feel insufficient political cover (from both parties, I would say) to make much noise about climate change. I would also note that political cover comes, ultimately, from the people; if corporations that speak out about climate change are praised and rewarded, instead of boycotted and slimed, we will see them become much more forthright. What I find sad is that Sen. Whitehouse, like almost all politicians, seems to recognize no personal complicity whatsoever in all this, even as he describes how he spent a whole week in meetings with lobbying groups that he himself knows have been “coopted by fossil fuel interests”. He says “the good guys in the corporate sector have to start showing up”. Hmm. Maybe the good guys in the political sector need to start showing up, too.
Forbes, 7 June 2016, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/06/07/lobby-climate-change-failure/#741962d569d3
This is an interesting piece by a sitting Senator, speaking frankly about how lobbying works inside the halls of Congress. The question he asks is simple: why don’t companies lobby for action on climate change? Even companies with a stated progressive attitude on climate change, such as Apple, Google, and Coca-Cola, don’t lobby on the issue at all; likewise with companies that directly lose money due to climate change, such as the logging industry (which has lost huge swathes of timber stands to beetle damage and forest fires) and the insurance industry (which pays out big bucks with every hurricane and flood). So, why? Sen. Whitehouse gives two reasons. First, lobbying organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have “all been coopted by fossil fuel interests” and fail to represent the companies that pay them, when it comes to lobbying on climate change. Indeed, Whitehouse calls the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is particularly egregious here, the “U.S. Chamber of Carbon”. Second, corporations are afraid of retribution; the Republican Party is, he says, so “intertwined” with fossil fuels that companies fear their wrath were they to act politically on climate change. Whitehouse ends on an upbeat note, citing the recent gathering of many American companies in support of a strong climate deal in the Paris Accords (as covered by another article I recently summarized); he says this group may be “too big to punish” and may thus herald a sea change.
My take: My impression is that Senator Whitehouse is being reasonably honest and direct here. I don’t agree with the way that he singles out the Republicans as being the crux of the problem; we have seen precious little real effort from the Democrats on climate change, too, although they are more willing to at least talk a good game. But overall I think what he says is true; lobbying organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce have been captured by the fossil fuel industry, and corporations feel insufficient political cover (from both parties, I would say) to make much noise about climate change. I would also note that political cover comes, ultimately, from the people; if corporations that speak out about climate change are praised and rewarded, instead of boycotted and slimed, we will see them become much more forthright. What I find sad is that Sen. Whitehouse, like almost all politicians, seems to recognize no personal complicity whatsoever in all this, even as he describes how he spent a whole week in meetings with lobbying groups that he himself knows have been “coopted by fossil fuel interests”. He says “the good guys in the corporate sector have to start showing up”. Hmm. Maybe the good guys in the political sector need to start showing up, too.
EPA Official Covered up Methane Leakage Problems across US Natural Gas Industry
EPA Official Covered up Methane Leakage Problems across US Natural Gas Industry
NC WARN, 8 June 2016, no author stated
http://www.ncwarn.org/2016/06/whistleblower-epa-official-covered-up-methane-leakage-problems/
This is a press release from non-profit climate/energy action group NC WARN, announcing that they have filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this complaint, they allege “scientific fraud” and “possibly criminal misconduct” against Dr. David Allen, past head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and a faculty member of the University of Texas at Austin, for a claimed “three-year effort to cover up underreporting” of methane emissions by the EPA.
My take: I am quite skeptical of this. First let me say that (1) I think methane leaks are a big problem for climate change, (2) I agree – as does everyone following this, including the EPA themselves – that the EPA has historically underreported methane leakage, and (3) this underreporting has doubtless given some degree of aid and comfort to the fracking industry. But this press release does not convincingly substantiate the allegations of scientific fraud and criminal misconduct against Dr. Allen, and it reeks of bias. A much more balanced presentation of both sides of the story can be found in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/09/this-heated-fight-over-methane-emissions-is-almost-as-hot-as-the-gas/). It may be that fraud and/or misconduct occurred; but that will only become clear after an actual investigation is done, and it would be unwise to jump to conclusions. I would trust organizations like NC WARN much more if they didn’t engage in this sort of demagoguery. For example, NC WARN states prominently that Dr. Allen "has been funded by the oil and gas industries for years”, while noting much less prominently and clearly that the studies in question by Dr. Allen were primarily funded, and published, by the Environmental Defense Fund – a rather less damning fact, no? This reminds me of the deceitful hounding of climate scientists by climate change denialists; such tactics ought to have no place in rational debate.
NC WARN, 8 June 2016, no author stated
http://www.ncwarn.org/2016/06/whistleblower-epa-official-covered-up-methane-leakage-problems/
This is a press release from non-profit climate/energy action group NC WARN, announcing that they have filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this complaint, they allege “scientific fraud” and “possibly criminal misconduct” against Dr. David Allen, past head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and a faculty member of the University of Texas at Austin, for a claimed “three-year effort to cover up underreporting” of methane emissions by the EPA.
My take: I am quite skeptical of this. First let me say that (1) I think methane leaks are a big problem for climate change, (2) I agree – as does everyone following this, including the EPA themselves – that the EPA has historically underreported methane leakage, and (3) this underreporting has doubtless given some degree of aid and comfort to the fracking industry. But this press release does not convincingly substantiate the allegations of scientific fraud and criminal misconduct against Dr. Allen, and it reeks of bias. A much more balanced presentation of both sides of the story can be found in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/09/this-heated-fight-over-methane-emissions-is-almost-as-hot-as-the-gas/). It may be that fraud and/or misconduct occurred; but that will only become clear after an actual investigation is done, and it would be unwise to jump to conclusions. I would trust organizations like NC WARN much more if they didn’t engage in this sort of demagoguery. For example, NC WARN states prominently that Dr. Allen "has been funded by the oil and gas industries for years”, while noting much less prominently and clearly that the studies in question by Dr. Allen were primarily funded, and published, by the Environmental Defense Fund – a rather less damning fact, no? This reminds me of the deceitful hounding of climate scientists by climate change denialists; such tactics ought to have no place in rational debate.
Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions
Amid a Graying Fleet of Nuclear Plants, a Hunt for Solutions
New York Times, 21 March 2016, by Henry Fountain
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/nuclear-energy-power-plants-advanced-reactors.html?_r=0
Nuclear plants in the U.S. are getting old: between 2029 and 2035, three dozen of our 99 reactors are due to close. It is possible that some plants could get their licenses extended, and four new plants are currently under construction; but with present energy policy it seems clear that we will see a major drop in nuclear power capacity overall in the coming years. Nuclear plants provide 19 percent of our electricity now, and they emit no CO2 or other greenhouse gases. When they close, they are generally replaced by coal or natural gas plants; it is difficult to replace them with solar or wind because those power sources are intermittent, whereas nuclear plants provide “baseline load” that can be relied upon at all times and in all weather. The impending closure of these plants therefore threatens the ability of the U.S. to meet the pledges it made in the recent Paris climate talks. Constructing new nuclear plants is difficult due to public opposition, pricing issues relative to other options, and the very long development and testing cycle required.
My take: This is one of the more interesting articles I’ve read in a while. The problem it outlines is real and serious. The rapid growth of solar and wind is clearly a positive development, but most analysts agree that that buildout is limited to perhaps about 50% of a typical country’s total energy mix because of issues of intermittency – where you get power from when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Technological advances in batteries and in large-scale grid distribution may ease that constraint – but that technology is not here yet, and we don’t know for sure whether it ever will be. Until then, we have to worry about where our baseline load is going to come from, and in general there are only three big options: nuclear, coal, and gas. Decreasing nuclear thus means increasing fossil fuels, almost inevitably, as countries that have moved away from nuclear in recent years, such as Germany and Japan, have discovered. This issue therefore poses a very real risk of missing climate targets, even amid the recent boom of solar and wind. I personally am a strong advocate of nuclear power, for this reason, but I accept that other people see that question differently. However, if you are anti-nuclear, you need to have a realistic alternative plan; a large buildout of underground storage of CO2, known as “carbon capture and sequestration”, is perhaps the only clear alternative, and has serious issues of its own, from cost to feasibility. This article poses the problem quite starkly, and thus provides welcome coverage of a topic that gets far too little airtime in the media. And I would note that putting a substantial price on carbon would help tremendously with this, by making nuclear more cost-competitive relative to coal and gas; it would then probably be the most cost-effective option for baseline load, which would allow the market to address this problem without further government intervention into energy policy.
New York Times, 21 March 2016, by Henry Fountain
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/nuclear-energy-power-plants-advanced-reactors.html?_r=0
Nuclear plants in the U.S. are getting old: between 2029 and 2035, three dozen of our 99 reactors are due to close. It is possible that some plants could get their licenses extended, and four new plants are currently under construction; but with present energy policy it seems clear that we will see a major drop in nuclear power capacity overall in the coming years. Nuclear plants provide 19 percent of our electricity now, and they emit no CO2 or other greenhouse gases. When they close, they are generally replaced by coal or natural gas plants; it is difficult to replace them with solar or wind because those power sources are intermittent, whereas nuclear plants provide “baseline load” that can be relied upon at all times and in all weather. The impending closure of these plants therefore threatens the ability of the U.S. to meet the pledges it made in the recent Paris climate talks. Constructing new nuclear plants is difficult due to public opposition, pricing issues relative to other options, and the very long development and testing cycle required.
My take: This is one of the more interesting articles I’ve read in a while. The problem it outlines is real and serious. The rapid growth of solar and wind is clearly a positive development, but most analysts agree that that buildout is limited to perhaps about 50% of a typical country’s total energy mix because of issues of intermittency – where you get power from when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Technological advances in batteries and in large-scale grid distribution may ease that constraint – but that technology is not here yet, and we don’t know for sure whether it ever will be. Until then, we have to worry about where our baseline load is going to come from, and in general there are only three big options: nuclear, coal, and gas. Decreasing nuclear thus means increasing fossil fuels, almost inevitably, as countries that have moved away from nuclear in recent years, such as Germany and Japan, have discovered. This issue therefore poses a very real risk of missing climate targets, even amid the recent boom of solar and wind. I personally am a strong advocate of nuclear power, for this reason, but I accept that other people see that question differently. However, if you are anti-nuclear, you need to have a realistic alternative plan; a large buildout of underground storage of CO2, known as “carbon capture and sequestration”, is perhaps the only clear alternative, and has serious issues of its own, from cost to feasibility. This article poses the problem quite starkly, and thus provides welcome coverage of a topic that gets far too little airtime in the media. And I would note that putting a substantial price on carbon would help tremendously with this, by making nuclear more cost-competitive relative to coal and gas; it would then probably be the most cost-effective option for baseline load, which would allow the market to address this problem without further government intervention into energy policy.
Renewable Energy Surges to Record Levels Around the World
Renewable Energy Surges to Record Levels Around the World
BBC News, 1 June 2016, by Matt McGrath
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36420750
This article presents evidence from a recent study, the Renewables Global Status Report, for acceleration toward adoption of green energy worldwide. According to the article, in 2015 several milestones were reached: (1) new green energy sources were added at the fastest rate ever, (2) investment in green energy was more than double investment in new coal and gas plants, (3) the developing world spent more on green energy than the developed world, and (4) over 8 million people were employed by the green energy sector. This is attributed mainly to falling costs for wind and solar.
My take: Overall, it’s clear that investment in solar and wind is increasing rapidly, and this is doubtless good news. However, I find this article to be rather unbalanced. Biodiesel, fuel ethanol, and hydro appear to be lumped in as “green” or “renewable” even though there are many issues with those energy sources that make them problematic, whereas nuclear is apparently not included (a pet peeve of mine). Another problem is that China accounts for more than a third of all of the green energy installed in 2015, according to the article – but China's reporting of statistics is known to be extremely inaccurate and biased. Even if true, the claim that China’s large investment in green energy says something about the developing world as a whole seems misleading. Furthermore, the article’s claim that “the economic case is now fully there” for solar and wind seems overblown given that they are still heavily subsidized, or even mandated, in many markets. Finally, the article says nothing about problems posed by this rapid buildout, such as intermittency, pricing issues caused by intermittency, and inadequate grid technology. I should emphasize again that I think this is a good news overall; I am just providing some skepticism to counter what seems to me to be a strong bias in the article.
BBC News, 1 June 2016, by Matt McGrath
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36420750
This article presents evidence from a recent study, the Renewables Global Status Report, for acceleration toward adoption of green energy worldwide. According to the article, in 2015 several milestones were reached: (1) new green energy sources were added at the fastest rate ever, (2) investment in green energy was more than double investment in new coal and gas plants, (3) the developing world spent more on green energy than the developed world, and (4) over 8 million people were employed by the green energy sector. This is attributed mainly to falling costs for wind and solar.
My take: Overall, it’s clear that investment in solar and wind is increasing rapidly, and this is doubtless good news. However, I find this article to be rather unbalanced. Biodiesel, fuel ethanol, and hydro appear to be lumped in as “green” or “renewable” even though there are many issues with those energy sources that make them problematic, whereas nuclear is apparently not included (a pet peeve of mine). Another problem is that China accounts for more than a third of all of the green energy installed in 2015, according to the article – but China's reporting of statistics is known to be extremely inaccurate and biased. Even if true, the claim that China’s large investment in green energy says something about the developing world as a whole seems misleading. Furthermore, the article’s claim that “the economic case is now fully there” for solar and wind seems overblown given that they are still heavily subsidized, or even mandated, in many markets. Finally, the article says nothing about problems posed by this rapid buildout, such as intermittency, pricing issues caused by intermittency, and inadequate grid technology. I should emphasize again that I think this is a good news overall; I am just providing some skepticism to counter what seems to me to be a strong bias in the article.
Put A Price On Carbon
Put A Price On Carbon
We Mean Business Coalition, 2015, no author given
http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/content/put-price-carbon
This is an “action”, in the parlance of the We Mean Business Coalition, that companies can sign onto to declare their support for carbon pricing. It was circulated prior to the Paris climate talks in December 2015, and currently has 76 companies that have “committed to action”. “Committing to action” means agreeing to some specific goals set by the UN, including (1) setting an internal carbon price that is “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” (but how high that is, is not specified), (2) publicly advocating for carbon pricing, and (3) discussing their progress on those goals in their corporate annual reports.
My take: It is interesting to compare their list to the companies mentioned in the previous article on the CDP’s study; in particular, both Exxon and Microsoft are missing from WMBC’s list. Greenwashing is again a large risk here, and the vagueness of “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” is really unfortunate. Nevertheless, these are substantial commitments, and I take the fact that Exxon has not signed on to this to be an indication that this survey may be less susceptible to deception and greenwashing than the CDP’s study. There are some big names on this list, from Nestlé to Unilever, and my initial take, without doing further research, is that they probably deserve some real credit for this commitment. We’ll see how they follow through on it.
We Mean Business Coalition, 2015, no author given
http://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/content/put-price-carbon
This is an “action”, in the parlance of the We Mean Business Coalition, that companies can sign onto to declare their support for carbon pricing. It was circulated prior to the Paris climate talks in December 2015, and currently has 76 companies that have “committed to action”. “Committing to action” means agreeing to some specific goals set by the UN, including (1) setting an internal carbon price that is “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” (but how high that is, is not specified), (2) publicly advocating for carbon pricing, and (3) discussing their progress on those goals in their corporate annual reports.
My take: It is interesting to compare their list to the companies mentioned in the previous article on the CDP’s study; in particular, both Exxon and Microsoft are missing from WMBC’s list. Greenwashing is again a large risk here, and the vagueness of “high enough to materially affect investment decisions” is really unfortunate. Nevertheless, these are substantial commitments, and I take the fact that Exxon has not signed on to this to be an indication that this survey may be less susceptible to deception and greenwashing than the CDP’s study. There are some big names on this list, from Nestlé to Unilever, and my initial take, without doing further research, is that they probably deserve some real credit for this commitment. We’ll see how they follow through on it.
At Least 150 Companies Prep For Carbon Prices
At Least 150 Companies Prep For Carbon Prices
USA TODAY, 15 September 2014, by Wendy Koch
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/us-companies-plan-for-climate-change-with-carbon-price/15526831/
This article from 2014 discusses a study from the CDP, a UK charity, that states that at least 150 companies around the world are incorporating the possibility of carbon pricing into their business plans. The CDP works with companies to help them disclose their carbon emissions, and surveys them annually regarding their policies surrounding emissions and climate change. This study was released just before the big climate summit in NYC in 2014, so the article mentions various related topics – the World Bank’s support for carbon pricing, U.S. inaction and opposition to carbon pricing, the relative success of carbon pricing in British Columbia, the existence of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Northeast's RGGI, China’s announcement of an intention to institute cap-and-trade, and EPA actions on coal plant emissions – without much substantive discussion.
My take: There is no doubt that companies try to anticipate future changes to the legal and regulatory environment, and momentum does seem to be building behind carbon pricing in recent years, so I don’t doubt the basic premise of the article. However, there is certainly cause for skepticism regarding the more specific claims of individual companies cited by the CDP’s report. Exxon is repeatedly listed in the article as one of the companies that now factors a future carbon price into their operations; indeed, they claim to use a price of $80 per ton CO2 in their internal bookkeeping. Given what we know about Exxon’s support of climate denialism, their decades of deception regarding their own research into climate change, etc., that simply reeks of greenwashing. Indeed, since all of the statistics gathered by the CDP are voluntarily disclosed by companies and cannot be checked, greenwashing is probably a major source of bias for the report as a whole. Microsoft, for example, apparently decided to assume a future price on carbon – but the price they chose is $6/ton. That is not carbon pricing, that is an insult to our intelligence.
USA TODAY, 15 September 2014, by Wendy Koch
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/us-companies-plan-for-climate-change-with-carbon-price/15526831/
This article from 2014 discusses a study from the CDP, a UK charity, that states that at least 150 companies around the world are incorporating the possibility of carbon pricing into their business plans. The CDP works with companies to help them disclose their carbon emissions, and surveys them annually regarding their policies surrounding emissions and climate change. This study was released just before the big climate summit in NYC in 2014, so the article mentions various related topics – the World Bank’s support for carbon pricing, U.S. inaction and opposition to carbon pricing, the relative success of carbon pricing in British Columbia, the existence of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Northeast's RGGI, China’s announcement of an intention to institute cap-and-trade, and EPA actions on coal plant emissions – without much substantive discussion.
My take: There is no doubt that companies try to anticipate future changes to the legal and regulatory environment, and momentum does seem to be building behind carbon pricing in recent years, so I don’t doubt the basic premise of the article. However, there is certainly cause for skepticism regarding the more specific claims of individual companies cited by the CDP’s report. Exxon is repeatedly listed in the article as one of the companies that now factors a future carbon price into their operations; indeed, they claim to use a price of $80 per ton CO2 in their internal bookkeeping. Given what we know about Exxon’s support of climate denialism, their decades of deception regarding their own research into climate change, etc., that simply reeks of greenwashing. Indeed, since all of the statistics gathered by the CDP are voluntarily disclosed by companies and cannot be checked, greenwashing is probably a major source of bias for the report as a whole. Microsoft, for example, apparently decided to assume a future price on carbon – but the price they chose is $6/ton. That is not carbon pricing, that is an insult to our intelligence.
The Political Hurdles Facing a Carbon Tax – And How to Overcome Them
The Political Hurdles Facing a Carbon Tax – And How to Overcome Them
Vox, 26 April 2016, by David Roberts
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints
While Roberts has written elsewhere about his reservations regarding carbon taxation, in this long and complex article he rhetorically accepts the premise of its importance, and discusses the politics of establishing a carbon tax. He begins by noting that virtually all existing carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes set a price that is well below the likely “social cost of carbon” (SCC; very roughly estimated to be about $75/ton CO2). This is, he argues, because of political constraints on carbon pricing: (1) concerns about regressive distributional impacts on the poor, (2) unwillingness on the part of citizens to pay the full SCC, and (3) opposition from fossil fuel interests. The key to overcoming these political constraints, he thinks, is to look at what would be done with the carbon tax revenue. Using the revenue to decrease other taxes, such as payroll and income taxes, substitutes a (regressive) carbon tax for existing (progressive) taxes, making constraint #1 even worse. Fee-and-dividend might be more politically viable, since it directly addresses constraint #2, but Roberts states that polling indicates otherwise: there is much less support for fee-and-dividend than for devoting carbon tax revenues to renewable energy research. Furthermore, whereas many decry cap-and-trade as “cap-and-giveaway”, and scorn the political compromises it involves, Roberts believes that those political compromises are precisely what makes cap-and-dividend politically possible, while fee-and-dividend is too ideologically pure to be politically viable. Roberts ends by mentioning that a carbon price should be sold to voters by emphasizing the positive things that will be done with the revenue (which, by the way, will be funded by a tax on dirty fossil fuels), rather than by emphasizing the carbon tax itself (which, by the way, will be used to do a laundry list of positive things).
My take: This article is very well-considered and thought-provoking, and must be taken seriously if we are to avoid ending up with a carbon tax, which we want, but set so low that it makes little difference to climate change. Roberts refers to polling data that he says indicate that only putting the tax revenue into renewables R&D has adequate public support (77%). However, while the support for fee-and-dividend is much lower (44%), the opposition to fee-and-dividend (25%) is barely different from the opposition to renewables R&D (21%). There are a great many people who have no opinion on fee-and-dividend, indicating a huge opportunity for education and outreach to raise positive awareness of this option. Regarding his final point, about how to sell a carbon tax to voters, I would note that it applies equally well to fee-and-dividend too. There has been a lot of buzz recently about a “universal basic income”: the idea of replacing existing welfare programs with a monthly check sent by the government to every citizen regardless of income, employment, or other circumstances. It is a type of welfare program that, like fee-and-dividend, appears to have an unusual amount of bipartisan appeal, and appears to have the support of many economists and other experts. I think that fee-and-dividend could be sold to voters as being, in effect, a universal basic income that happens to be funded, on the back end, with a tax on dirty fossil fuels. This would place the emphasis, as Roberts suggests, on the positive things being done with the revenue, rather than on the tax; and as Roberts notes, “who wouldn’t love getting checks?”
Vox, 26 April 2016, by David Roberts
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints
While Roberts has written elsewhere about his reservations regarding carbon taxation, in this long and complex article he rhetorically accepts the premise of its importance, and discusses the politics of establishing a carbon tax. He begins by noting that virtually all existing carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes set a price that is well below the likely “social cost of carbon” (SCC; very roughly estimated to be about $75/ton CO2). This is, he argues, because of political constraints on carbon pricing: (1) concerns about regressive distributional impacts on the poor, (2) unwillingness on the part of citizens to pay the full SCC, and (3) opposition from fossil fuel interests. The key to overcoming these political constraints, he thinks, is to look at what would be done with the carbon tax revenue. Using the revenue to decrease other taxes, such as payroll and income taxes, substitutes a (regressive) carbon tax for existing (progressive) taxes, making constraint #1 even worse. Fee-and-dividend might be more politically viable, since it directly addresses constraint #2, but Roberts states that polling indicates otherwise: there is much less support for fee-and-dividend than for devoting carbon tax revenues to renewable energy research. Furthermore, whereas many decry cap-and-trade as “cap-and-giveaway”, and scorn the political compromises it involves, Roberts believes that those political compromises are precisely what makes cap-and-dividend politically possible, while fee-and-dividend is too ideologically pure to be politically viable. Roberts ends by mentioning that a carbon price should be sold to voters by emphasizing the positive things that will be done with the revenue (which, by the way, will be funded by a tax on dirty fossil fuels), rather than by emphasizing the carbon tax itself (which, by the way, will be used to do a laundry list of positive things).
My take: This article is very well-considered and thought-provoking, and must be taken seriously if we are to avoid ending up with a carbon tax, which we want, but set so low that it makes little difference to climate change. Roberts refers to polling data that he says indicate that only putting the tax revenue into renewables R&D has adequate public support (77%). However, while the support for fee-and-dividend is much lower (44%), the opposition to fee-and-dividend (25%) is barely different from the opposition to renewables R&D (21%). There are a great many people who have no opinion on fee-and-dividend, indicating a huge opportunity for education and outreach to raise positive awareness of this option. Regarding his final point, about how to sell a carbon tax to voters, I would note that it applies equally well to fee-and-dividend too. There has been a lot of buzz recently about a “universal basic income”: the idea of replacing existing welfare programs with a monthly check sent by the government to every citizen regardless of income, employment, or other circumstances. It is a type of welfare program that, like fee-and-dividend, appears to have an unusual amount of bipartisan appeal, and appears to have the support of many economists and other experts. I think that fee-and-dividend could be sold to voters as being, in effect, a universal basic income that happens to be funded, on the back end, with a tax on dirty fossil fuels. This would place the emphasis, as Roberts suggests, on the positive things being done with the revenue, rather than on the tax; and as Roberts notes, “who wouldn’t love getting checks?”
What We’re Getting Wrong in the Carbon Tax Debate
What We’re Getting Wrong in the Carbon Tax Debate
Grist, 29 April 2016, by Clayton Aldern
http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-were-getting-wrong-in-the-carbon-tax-debate
This article speaks against recent “green infighting” in which major players and pundits, such as Paul Krugman, Bill Gates, and David Roberts [see below], have emphasized the downsides of a carbon tax. This, Aldern argues, risks making the perfect the enemy of the good (as the saying goes), by failing to acknowledge both the power and the importance of carbon pricing. Furthermore, it unwisely gives ammunition to climate denialists who oppose action of any kind on climate change. The “infighters” argue that a carbon tax will be less effective than some expect, for both economic and political reasons, and that other policy action would therefore be needed even if a carbon tax were instituted. Alpern concedes this point (perhaps too easily), but argues that a revenue-neutral carbon price is a climate change policy that both the left and the right could agree upon – unlike cap-and-trade, and unlike most subsidies and regulations – and that it is therefore unwise to undermine it with quibbles and nitpicks.
My take: I think Aldern is precisely right. The bipartisan appeal of fee-and-dividend makes it our most viable policy option, and while fee-and-dividend is not a panacea, it is foolish and counterproductive for those who advocate action of climate change to undermine it.
Grist, 29 April 2016, by Clayton Aldern
http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-were-getting-wrong-in-the-carbon-tax-debate
This article speaks against recent “green infighting” in which major players and pundits, such as Paul Krugman, Bill Gates, and David Roberts [see below], have emphasized the downsides of a carbon tax. This, Aldern argues, risks making the perfect the enemy of the good (as the saying goes), by failing to acknowledge both the power and the importance of carbon pricing. Furthermore, it unwisely gives ammunition to climate denialists who oppose action of any kind on climate change. The “infighters” argue that a carbon tax will be less effective than some expect, for both economic and political reasons, and that other policy action would therefore be needed even if a carbon tax were instituted. Alpern concedes this point (perhaps too easily), but argues that a revenue-neutral carbon price is a climate change policy that both the left and the right could agree upon – unlike cap-and-trade, and unlike most subsidies and regulations – and that it is therefore unwise to undermine it with quibbles and nitpicks.
My take: I think Aldern is precisely right. The bipartisan appeal of fee-and-dividend makes it our most viable policy option, and while fee-and-dividend is not a panacea, it is foolish and counterproductive for those who advocate action of climate change to undermine it.
Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the World Bank and I.M.F.
Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the World Bank and I.M.F.
New York Times, 23 April 2016, by Coral Davenport
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/carbon-pricingbecomes-a-cause-for-the-world-bank-and-imf.html
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), two of the largest international lenders, announced their intention to press governments worldwide to impose a price on carbon emissions. The institutions expressed support for the goals of the Paris climate change agreement, but stated that achieving those goals will only be possible if a price is put on carbon pollution from fossil fuels. The World Bank’s focus is on global poverty, and they consider climate change a “key driver” of poverty; the IMF, often called the “lender of last resort” for countries, sees carbon pricing as a mechanism for countries to raise revenue without compromising their Paris pledges. They intend to provide both economic and technical assistance to countries that wish to establish carbon pricing, whether in the form of a tax or a cap-and-trade system (no mention is made of fee-and-dividend), and they are already working with 18 countries including China, with an overall goal of linking national systems into a global carbon trading market. Joining the World Bank and IMF in a public statement advocating carbon pricing were the leaders of Canada, Chile, Ethiopia, France, Germany, and Mexico – but not the United States.
My take: This is a hugely positive development overall. The focus on a “carbon market” (which likely means cap-and-trade) is disappointing in some respects, but does introduce the interesting possibility of carbon emission permits being traded internationally, which could be a very powerful way to encourage sustainable development globally while recognizing the unfairness of past emissions and present economic conditions. The absence of support from Obama is unfortunate but unsurprising, and as the article notes, Hillary Clinton has not stated support for a carbon price, while Donald Trump questions the reality of anthropogenic climate change and has stated his intention to withdraw the U.S. from its Paris commitments. Progress on carbon pricing in the U.S. has only been at the state and regional level, and that appears likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Internationally, however, this announcement gives considerable new weight to the carbon pricing movement.
New York Times, 23 April 2016, by Coral Davenport
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/carbon-pricingbecomes-a-cause-for-the-world-bank-and-imf.html
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), two of the largest international lenders, announced their intention to press governments worldwide to impose a price on carbon emissions. The institutions expressed support for the goals of the Paris climate change agreement, but stated that achieving those goals will only be possible if a price is put on carbon pollution from fossil fuels. The World Bank’s focus is on global poverty, and they consider climate change a “key driver” of poverty; the IMF, often called the “lender of last resort” for countries, sees carbon pricing as a mechanism for countries to raise revenue without compromising their Paris pledges. They intend to provide both economic and technical assistance to countries that wish to establish carbon pricing, whether in the form of a tax or a cap-and-trade system (no mention is made of fee-and-dividend), and they are already working with 18 countries including China, with an overall goal of linking national systems into a global carbon trading market. Joining the World Bank and IMF in a public statement advocating carbon pricing were the leaders of Canada, Chile, Ethiopia, France, Germany, and Mexico – but not the United States.
My take: This is a hugely positive development overall. The focus on a “carbon market” (which likely means cap-and-trade) is disappointing in some respects, but does introduce the interesting possibility of carbon emission permits being traded internationally, which could be a very powerful way to encourage sustainable development globally while recognizing the unfairness of past emissions and present economic conditions. The absence of support from Obama is unfortunate but unsurprising, and as the article notes, Hillary Clinton has not stated support for a carbon price, while Donald Trump questions the reality of anthropogenic climate change and has stated his intention to withdraw the U.S. from its Paris commitments. Progress on carbon pricing in the U.S. has only been at the state and regional level, and that appears likely to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Internationally, however, this announcement gives considerable new weight to the carbon pricing movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)