Politics – Page 158 – a sibilant intake of breath

Biofuels versus electric vehicles

A study published by Science Expressed and discussed on Grist concludes that growing biomass for electricity production, and then using it to run electric vehicles, is more effective per acre than growing crops to produce liquid biofuels for internal combustion engines. This is true even if the liquid fuels are so-called ‘second generation’ or cellulosic biofuels, which it is hoped will provide an improvement over the poor climate change and energy security benefits of fuels like corn ethanol. The study estimates that the miles of travel enabled per acre are 81% greater when growing biomass for electricity, compared with cellulosic ethanol.

It seems like the most probable path to de-carbonized transport is the conversion of all short and medium-range vehicles to electric power, with liquid fuels reserved for vehicles that must travel long distances, aircraft, and vehicles operated in remote areas. Producing energy from biomass has another potential advantage, if carbon capture and storage (CCS) proves viable. By adding CCS to biomass-fueled power plants, net reductions in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could be achieved.

In time, it seems likely that the many government policies promoting the widespread use of biofuels were an ineffective response to both concerns about climate change and about energy security. In particular, ‘mandates’ that a certain fraction of vehicle fuels be biofuels do not necessarily do a good job of aligning outcomes with climate change objectives, since they are insensitive to both the lifecycle emissions associated with the fuels and to the economics of producing them.

How climate change is like fisheries depletion

Fisheries and climate change are both areas where severe common property failures exist: that is, individuals have an incentive to exploit the system, to the detriment of all. A recent RealClimate post ties the two together in a neat analogy, which also covers the evolving practice of climate change denial (or delay). Specifically, it is alluding to the North-South issues in the ongoing UNFCCC negotiations, and the tensions between developing world states who want the rich world to cut first and most deeply and developed states concerned about seeing any emissions reductions they produce overwhelmed by growth in developing states. Beyond the state-to-state negotiations, the tension also provides cover for those who want to avoid taking any action, no matter how severe the long-term consequences of doing so will be.

Both positions have validity, and the mechanisms for resolving the views remain under debate. That being said, the outlines are clear. Every significant emitter will have to take action. Rich states need to start doing so first and more sharply. They also need to provide assistance to developing states, in the form of technology and funding. Through coordinated global action, dangerous climate change can be avoided, and the world economy can be set on a path where it maintains climatic stability in the long term.

Crises and change

I came across a quote from Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning Chicago School economist, that seems well suited to the practice of trying to combat climate change:

Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

It certainly seems to apply well to all those who kept researching and debating climate policies in the U.S. through the long darkness of the Bush years. Now, some of the most compelling of those ideas are being voiced as serious possibilities.

The lesson for those hoping to change things, perhaps, is not to despair during times when necessary actions seem politically impossible, but rather to use those times for further preparation, as well as to try to provoke the kind of political crises that permit real change to occur.

Capping or taxing fossil fuels at import or production

Responding to a Nature article mentioned here before, George Monbiot has raised the issue of limiting fossil fuel extraction as a way to gauge the seriousness of governments in fighting climate change. It’s an idea with some virtues, both on climate change and energy security grounds.

Targeting emissions means keeping track of a mind-boggling array of activities: from cement manufacture to vehicle use to landfill gasses. By contrast, targeting fossil fuels would mean dealing with a modest number of firms. Instead of applying a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system to emissions, the alternative would be to use those instruments for fossil fuel imports and production. Doing so would require only that the output from gas fields, oil fields, and coal mines be recorded, along with imports of fuels. In the tax scenario, each fuel would require payments proportional to the greenhouse gasses it will produce when burned. In a cap-and-trade scheme, a set amount of carbon would be permitted to be extracted from the ground or imported, with firms competing for the permits in auctions. This would have the same prioritization effect as a carbon tax on emissions: firms that absolutely needed particular fuels would be willing to bid for permits, while those with alternatives would start to employ them.

Ideally, the scheme would also incorporate land-use change. Those wanting to convert land rich in biomass into something else would need to pay a tax or buy credits equivalent to the gasses being released. Conversely, firms planting forests on land previously poor in biomass could be given grants (under a tax scheme) or permits (under a cap-and-trade scheme).

It might also make political sense to differentiate between imports and domestic production, with the former getting stricter treatment. That would somewhat lessen the opposition of domestic industry, while also accelerating the movement of the state imposing the policy towards energy independence. It would probably be less economically and environmentally effective, but it might be a mechanism for gaining domestic support, while still making it clear that the overall objective is to reduce fossil fuel use to zero. Such a policy could also be justified with reference to higher volatility in fossil fuel prices and availability from abroad, as well as the implicit subsidies to users of imported fossil fuels in the form of military aid and military operations in oil-producing regions. Of course, there is a good chance that it would violate the equal treatment provisions in agreements like NAFTA and the enabling legislation for the WTO.

In the event that carbon capture and storage proves to be a safe, economically viable, and effective technology, it could easily be incorporated into such a system. You would simply make payments or grant permits to firms doing the storing, contingent on them providing whatever maintenance the sites require.

By creating incentives for an unending push towards the non-use of fossil fuels, such policies would make it clear that our ultimate objective must be complete global carbon neutrality. Nothing else is compatible with long-term climatic stability.

[Update: 8 March 2010]. BuryCoal.com is a site dedicated to making the case for leaving coal, along with unconventional oil and gas, underground.

Underground coal gasification is no solution

Writing in The Globe and Mail Thomas Homer-Dixon and Julio Friedman put forward a misleading argument about coal. Specifically, they argue that converting it to gas below ground makes it more acceptable as a fuel source, because underground coal gassification “uses an inaccessible, dirty resource for largely clean energy.” This is only remotely true when the technology is used with (as yet non-existent) carbon capture and storage technology. Until such technologies are proven to be safe, economical, and effective, it is not acceptable to contemplate the further use of coal as an energy source.

Simply put, the carbon trapped in coal absolutely must be kept in the ground, if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. Trumpeting any coal-based technology that will add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is simply irresponsible, especially in a developed country like Canada that already has a shockingly high level of emissions.

A steady state economy

One key tenet of ecological economics is that we need to move from a political and economic system focused on the growth of production (GDP) to one focused on constant biophysical throughput. The latter concept is basically an amalgamation of everything humanity takes from the physical world and all the wastes that are returned to it. On the first side of the ledger are withdrawals like ore and hydrocarbons; on the other are wastes including greenhouse gasses and other forms of pollution. While it could not be expressed in the form of a single number, it is fairly easy to imagine a suite of key physical and energy flows through which the aggregate size of human throughput could be summarized.

The basic idea has appeal for several reasons. Most obviously, it addresses the concerns that exist about how much impact humanity can have on the world without causing key biological and physical systems to fail. It also partially addresses the question of how to ensure that human lives become sustainable without becoming unnecessarily unpleasant. It’s the human throughput that actually weighs on the world, not GDP. Even in a situation where the throughput was constant, welfare per person could still increase in many ways: things could become more technologically advanced, better designed, more elegant, etc. They could also be improved significantly by more effectively eliminating situations of needless suffering, as with the treatable diseases that continue to take a terrible toll in the developing world. Of course, per-capita improvements could also be achieved with constant throughput and a falling population.

One objection to the idea is that, when it comes to renewable power, we are nowhere near the physical limits of what is possible. The total quantity of solar, wind, and tidal energy available is momentous, and it doesn’t seem sensible to focus on the total size of human withdrawals from those flows. As such, perhaps the steady-state approach is better suited to non-energy resources, while on the topic of energy, the drive must be from unsustainable forms (oil, gas, coal) to semi-sustainable forms (nuclear fission, etc) and eventually to fully sustainable options like concentrating solar thermal, hydroelectric, and geothermal.

In the end, the prescription for humanity seems to resemble a cheesy grocery store magazine diet: avoid carbon-intensive fuels, manage resource use and waste flows, and feel free to use all the renewable energy and carbon- and resource-neutral technological advancement as you can manage.

U.S. Submission on Copenhagen Agreed Outcome

In preparation for the upcoming UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, various parties to the agreement have made submissions, outlining their perspectives on the negotiations. The position of the United States (PDF) is now available.

I don’t personally have time to keep track of the details of all the various proposals. Furthermore, the alliances formed between negotiating parties may prove to be the most important element in determining the outcome of the meeting. Nonetheless, I thought it would be of interest.

Australia’s carbon price delayed

When Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd came to power, it was hailed as a victory against climate change, given the inaction of his predecessor and the contents of the Rudd platform. Disappointingly, a key element of that has how been put on hold for a year, supposedly because of the ongoing economic crisis. Australia’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) will now launch in 2011, rather than July 2010, as originally planned.

Personally, I think it is foolish to delay carbon pricing on account of the credit crunch. We want to be rebuilding national economies in a manner complimentary to climatic stability. Also, the less time we give ourselves to increase carbon prices to the necessary levels, the more painful the eventual adjustment will be. Given that prices were to be set at $7 per tonne for the first year, the policy would not have been an excessive burden on industry, even if the funds weren’t recycled back via tax cuts elsewhere or investments in low-carbon infrastructure. A moderate carbon price now thus serves the dual purpose of alignment economic redevelopment more with environmental goals, while stretching out the total timeline across which adjustments will be made.

Like Canada, Australia has some of the highest per-capita emissions in the world. That means they bear special historical responsibility for the climate change problem. It also means they should have more opportunities for low-cost reductions in emissions. Both ethical and economic logic suggest that this delay is a mistake.

The Global Climate Coalition and climate change denial

Some interesting evidence has emerged about the artificial ‘debate’ that has been created about the reality of human-induced climate change. Documents filed in a federal lawsuit reveal that the scientists working for the Global Climate Coalition – a fossil fuel industry front group that sought to prevent action on climate change – were themselves convinced of the reality of the problem. Back in 1995, they advised in an internal paper that: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

This contrasts sharply with what the group said in public, and what they probably said to politicians while lobbying. It helps to demonstrate that the tactic here isn’t appropriate scientific skepticism, but simply a rearguard action to delay climate change mitigation policies. They have certainly succeeded in confusing some politicians with an ideological bent that predisposes them to rejecting climate policies. For instance, Republican Representative for Minesota Michele Bachmann has publicly expressed an absurd position on the science of climate change, while also calling for those who are opposed to climate legislation to be “armed and dangerous” and ready to “fight back hard” against legislation like the Waxman-Markey bill.

Who would control geoengineering?

Over at Slate there is an interesting article about the geopolitics of geoengineering: specifically, the ramifications of the fact that any major nation could choose to deliberately modify the planet’s climate. As the author identifies, this is in some sense the reverse of the ordinary climate change problem. So far, the issue has been how to produce a global action when states disagree on what should be done, how quickly it should occur, and who should pay. By contrast, the problems with the politics of geoengineering are making sure that any states that undertake it do so with the interests of all states (and future generations) in mind.

This is especially problematic because the side-effects of geoengineering might fall disproportionately on certain states, probably the ones who would not be in control of the policy. For instance, consider the so-called ‘Pinatubo option’ of particulate injection into the upper atmosphere. It might help cool the planet overall, but could severely disrupt patterns of precipitation and wind. It would also do nothing about the problem of ocean acidification. Who would decide if the possible advantages outweighed the risks? Who would pay for the side effects? Who could decide to shut the system down, if the effects in some places prove too painful?

Another issue with the ‘Pinatubo option’ is that it would need to be constantly maintained to keep working. This could be an advantage, since we could ‘turn it off’ if it proved too problematic. It could also be a disadvantage, since disabling the system would bring about abrupt and dangerous warming.

All this may be moot, if no forms of geoengineering actually work, or if the danger of unintended consequences is sufficient to deter states from trying. That being said, I see geoengineering (regrettably) as a real possibility. If we don’t reduce emissions fast enough and start to really feel the full brunt of climate change, it will become harder and harder to argue against. As such, it is good that we are starting to consider both the physical and political elements of geoengineering now.