"If 2007 was the year when climate change rose to the top of the global agenda, 2008 is the time we must take concerted action," according to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, as reported by Associated Press. Ban was speaking yesterday at the beginning of a two-day U.N. General Assembly debate to generate support for a new treaty by 2009 to fight global warming.
Michael Bloomberg, the keynote speaker and New York's climate-activist mayor, called on the United States to set "real and binding" targets to reduce the greenhouse gases blamed for warming the planet, in contrast to the current U.S. strategy that largely relies on voluntary approaches and spending for research and technology. "I believe that the American people are prepared for our responsibility to lead by example," he said.
For full story see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23112240/
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Sail Power
I recently read about the maiden voyage of a new freighter, the MS Beluga SkySails, departing out of Bremerhaven for Venezuela. I did a bit of Googling and found another story, dated last year, about the maiden voyage of the same ship set for December 2007, this time carrying windmills from Denmark to Houston. Does anyone know whether that voyage happened?
Not that it really matters. The story is that the Beluga features a large computer-controlled kite to augment the ships diesel engines to save up to 20% of the fuel it would otherwise use. The system is made by Skysails of Hamburg (http://www.skysails.info/index.php?L=1), and the kite is mounted in such a way that it’s tether can rotate around the bow of the ship to provide wind power when traveling in any direction other than direction against the wind.
Not that it really matters. The story is that the Beluga features a large computer-controlled kite to augment the ships diesel engines to save up to 20% of the fuel it would otherwise use. The system is made by Skysails of Hamburg (http://www.skysails.info/index.php?L=1), and the kite is mounted in such a way that it’s tether can rotate around the bow of the ship to provide wind power when traveling in any direction other than direction against the wind.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Carbon Neutral Costa Rica
Two short posts today.
NPR reported today that Costa Rica’s aim to become the first carbon neutral country might be at risk due to the effects of climate change itself. The country produces nearly 80% of its electricity from Hydroelectric plants (and another 18% from wind and geothermal sources) and even a tiny shift in rainfall patterns could leave the country without enough water to meet its growing demand for electricity. Of course, nobody knows exactly what the specific local effects of climate change will be, but scientists think it is likely to have a significant effect on rainfall.
According to Reuters, the aim of cutting Costa Rica’s net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2021 was announced by President Oscar Arias in June 2007. (2021 is Costa Rica's 200th birthday.) Costa Rican officials had previously announced plans to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions by 2027.
Officials say the country will clean up its fossil fuel-fired power plants, promote hybrid vehicles, cut emissions from transport, farming and industry, and increase tree planting to balance its emissions. Government programs to promote reforestation have already put trees on 51 percent of the country, a 10 percent increase over the last decade.
Full NPR story can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18832252
Reuters story can be found at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07289157.htm
NPR reported today that Costa Rica’s aim to become the first carbon neutral country might be at risk due to the effects of climate change itself. The country produces nearly 80% of its electricity from Hydroelectric plants (and another 18% from wind and geothermal sources) and even a tiny shift in rainfall patterns could leave the country without enough water to meet its growing demand for electricity. Of course, nobody knows exactly what the specific local effects of climate change will be, but scientists think it is likely to have a significant effect on rainfall.
According to Reuters, the aim of cutting Costa Rica’s net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2021 was announced by President Oscar Arias in June 2007. (2021 is Costa Rica's 200th birthday.) Costa Rican officials had previously announced plans to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions by 2027.
Officials say the country will clean up its fossil fuel-fired power plants, promote hybrid vehicles, cut emissions from transport, farming and industry, and increase tree planting to balance its emissions. Government programs to promote reforestation have already put trees on 51 percent of the country, a 10 percent increase over the last decade.
Full NPR story can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18832252
Reuters story can be found at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07289157.htm
Warm Winter in England
A short post today about recent mild winters in England. Far be it from me to relate this directly to climate change, but some people seem more swayed by anecdotal 'evidence' than the science.
On January 2nd, UPI announced that the mild winter was causing daffodils to bloom months earlier than usual. They also cited concern at Kew Botanical Gardens (just outside London) over changes in behavior observed since the 1980s in more than 75% of plant species whose biological patterns depend on temperature.
Now, well actually last week, Reuters reports similar concern over tortoises coming out of hibernation too early. Owners are advised to put them in the refrigerator, making sure you open it once a day to get some air in. See http://uk.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUKL0682389820080206 for full story.
On January 2nd, UPI announced that the mild winter was causing daffodils to bloom months earlier than usual. They also cited concern at Kew Botanical Gardens (just outside London) over changes in behavior observed since the 1980s in more than 75% of plant species whose biological patterns depend on temperature.
Now, well actually last week, Reuters reports similar concern over tortoises coming out of hibernation too early. Owners are advised to put them in the refrigerator, making sure you open it once a day to get some air in. See http://uk.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUKL0682389820080206 for full story.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Beef about Climate Change
Here is something we can all do; eat less meat. Here is why.
Anthropogenic global warming skeptics are fond of pointing out that a lot of greenhouse gas emissions come from animals (in the form of methane) and suggest that this “natural” effect is not anthropogenic. But a lot of the animals involved are livestock for human consumption. An interesting article in the New York Times on January 27th points out that Americans alone eat nearly 10 billion animals a year. Worldwide we ate about 284 million tons in 2007, up about 300% from 1961, and this is expected to increase double by 2050.
My vegan sister has often told me how inefficient it is to eat meat, but I had not realized the extent of the problem. The NYT article has some interesting statistics:
· 6 ounces of beef produces 16 times the greenhouse gases as a vegetarian meal with the same number of calories.
· If each of us in the US were to cut our meat consumption by just 20% it would be equivalent to everyone switching from a Camry to a Prius.
· Producing 2.2 pounds of beef uses as much energy as burning a 100 watt bulb for nearly 20 days. (Not sure why they chose 2.2 pounds; maybe converted from a kilo. We eat about 4 pounds of meat, poultry, and fish each week.)
Then there is the problem of deforestation in places like Brazil to make room for cattle. 30% of the earth’s ice-free land is involved in livestock production.
For the full NYT article see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=meat+guzzler&st=nyt&oref=slogin.
Eating less meat need not be a hardship. Indeed it will make us healthier. I like my meat but it does not need to be the biggest thing on my plate. I’d rather have it in meals like stew or curry or in a meat sauce with pasta, where a pound of meat probably is good for about 6 meals. On the rare occasion that I have a steak I have the smallest filet (without bacon wrap) which is usually 6 ounces and more than enough. I reckon I eat about 60% of the national average; two Camry-to-Prius swaps, which makes me feel a bit better about my RX/7.
Anthropogenic global warming skeptics are fond of pointing out that a lot of greenhouse gas emissions come from animals (in the form of methane) and suggest that this “natural” effect is not anthropogenic. But a lot of the animals involved are livestock for human consumption. An interesting article in the New York Times on January 27th points out that Americans alone eat nearly 10 billion animals a year. Worldwide we ate about 284 million tons in 2007, up about 300% from 1961, and this is expected to increase double by 2050.
My vegan sister has often told me how inefficient it is to eat meat, but I had not realized the extent of the problem. The NYT article has some interesting statistics:
· 6 ounces of beef produces 16 times the greenhouse gases as a vegetarian meal with the same number of calories.
· If each of us in the US were to cut our meat consumption by just 20% it would be equivalent to everyone switching from a Camry to a Prius.
· Producing 2.2 pounds of beef uses as much energy as burning a 100 watt bulb for nearly 20 days. (Not sure why they chose 2.2 pounds; maybe converted from a kilo. We eat about 4 pounds of meat, poultry, and fish each week.)
Then there is the problem of deforestation in places like Brazil to make room for cattle. 30% of the earth’s ice-free land is involved in livestock production.
For the full NYT article see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=meat+guzzler&st=nyt&oref=slogin.
Eating less meat need not be a hardship. Indeed it will make us healthier. I like my meat but it does not need to be the biggest thing on my plate. I’d rather have it in meals like stew or curry or in a meat sauce with pasta, where a pound of meat probably is good for about 6 meals. On the rare occasion that I have a steak I have the smallest filet (without bacon wrap) which is usually 6 ounces and more than enough. I reckon I eat about 60% of the national average; two Camry-to-Prius swaps, which makes me feel a bit better about my RX/7.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Unintended Consequences
I don’t normally want to do more than one post per day, but this breaking news is also a perfect example of why we need accurate price signals.
It has long been known that corn-based ethanol is a very inefficient way of producing fuel, and that by raising the price of corn (and other foods which could be grown on the same ground) contributes to starvation in developing countries. (See for example http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/032207EB.shtml.) The motivation for corn ethanol was always political, to reward the farm lobby.
But yesterday there was news of two new studies published online in Science magazine which take all this into account and concludes that the overall effect of corn ethanol production is actually counterproductive, i.e. it adds about twice as much GHG to the atmosphere than using gasoline. The food taken out of the supply system for ethanol production needs to get replaced, and the way it gets replaced is largely by deforestation.
It has long been known that corn-based ethanol is a very inefficient way of producing fuel, and that by raising the price of corn (and other foods which could be grown on the same ground) contributes to starvation in developing countries. (See for example http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/032207EB.shtml.) The motivation for corn ethanol was always political, to reward the farm lobby.
But yesterday there was news of two new studies published online in Science magazine which take all this into account and concludes that the overall effect of corn ethanol production is actually counterproductive, i.e. it adds about twice as much GHG to the atmosphere than using gasoline. The food taken out of the supply system for ethanol production needs to get replaced, and the way it gets replaced is largely by deforestation.
Pricing Carbon -- Part Two
Last week I discussed the various ways carbon might be priced. This week I discuss what prices might emerge from these different pricing mechanisms and how this affects you and me through the prices we pay for gasoline and electricity.
Before we get into that, we need to talk about units. GHG emissions are normally measured in CO2 equivalents, but some people quote the price per tonne (a.k.a. metric ton) of carbon and some per tonne of carbon dioxide. 1 tonne of CO2 contains about 0.27 tonnes of carbon. Also, estimates may be in different currencies, so I have converted all to US$ per tonne of CO2. (“US$/tCO2”) I have used approximate exchange rates: 2 US$ to the pound sterling, 1.5 US$ to the euro, and 1.25 NZ$ to the US$.
The best-known cap-and-trade system is the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) which started in 2005 on a trial basis and became fully operational at the beginning of 2008 when the Kyoto commitment period started. It covers industries like power generation, iron and steel, glass and cement which between them accounted for about 40% of the CO2 emissions of the EU’s 25 member states at the time. The EU is required by the Kyoto Protocol to cut its emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.
The idea was that permits would be issued to match the target amount of emissions, and these permits were to be given away rather than auctioned. Since the target was less than the previous level of emissions, affected industries would have to reduce their own emissions or buy permits from other companies who were better able to reduce theirs. A third option was to buy CERs, or Certified Emission Reductions, from third world countries. These CERs fund projects which reduce emissions in those countries and which would not be economic without the sale of CERs.
That was the theory anyway. Unfortunately, each member country got to decide how many permits to give away, and it soon became clear that too many had been issued. The result was that the price, which was expected to be over 40 euros per tonne, at one point plummeted to only 8 euros. This was expected to be corrected when the scheme became fully operational on January 1st 2008, but it has been somewhat derailed by the global credit crunch which has reduced expectations of energy demand. The price of carbon on the ETS is currently about 20 euros and for CERs about 15 euros.
Another approach is a carbon tax, but there are few if any examples. (The city of Boulder, Colorado does have a small carbon tax and there may be other examples. Clearly this needs to be done on a National – or better still, international – basis.) http://www.carbontax.org/ is a good resource for the carbon tax debate in the US. As for what the rate should be, this could be based upon an estimate of what is needed to achieve a certain emission target, or by estimating the actual cost of the damage. In the first case, we might expect the price to be commensurate with the market price in a cap-and-trade system. A 1997 report on a possible carbon tax in New Zealand considered tax rates starting in 2005 between about US$12/tCO2 and US$31/tCO2 (depending upon the target amounting of abatement) and gradually increasing to US$17/tCO2 to US$44/tCO2.
Estimates of the actual cost of climate change are not surprisingly all over the lot. A 2004 meta-study by Richard Tol analyzed 103 estimates from 28 published studies, yielding estimates from slightly negative (because some people benefit from climate change) to US$450/tCO2. The median value was US$4/tCO2 and Tol concludes that the cost – and therefore any tax -- is unlikely to exceed US$13.5tCO2. (All these values converted from US$/tC.)
The Stern Review, commissioned by the UK government and issued in 2006, is perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to estimate the cost of unabated climate change. It came up with a higher value, largely because of the use of a lower social discount rate and equity weighting as discussed last week. It estimated the cost of doing nothing to be about US$85/tCO2, while the cost of reducing emissions was only about US$25/tCO2. (For the key findings, see http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,,1935208,00.html.) In 2007, The UK government’s environmental agency, DEFRA, adopted a social cost of US$50/tCO2 to be used in all cost-benefit analyses of public projects.
So, what does all this mean? It looks like a carbon tax would likely be in the range of US$10/tCO2 to US$50/tCO2.
A gallon of gasoline generates about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. A tonne is about 2200 pounds, so that is less than one hundredth of a tonne. The tax would therefore amount to only about 10 to 50 cents per gallon. With gasoline at $3, that would be an increase of between 3% and 17%.
For electricity generated from coal, the tax would amount to between 1 and 5 cents per kWh. For natural gas it can be as little as half that, though this depends more on the upstream cost of producing the gas. I currently pay about 16 cents per kWh, so that would be about 6% to 30% on my electricity bill. Note that the proportional effect on the electricity bill is much greater than on gasoline. In absolute terms, the difference could be even greater.
Last year my wife and I spent $3000 on electricity (down 25% on two years ago due to CFLs and other measures I will blog about at a later date) and maybe $2500 on gasoline for two cars. So, the total cost of a carbon tax (or the equivalent) for these two items would be somewhere in the range of $250 to $1300 per year. My feeling about this is that it is that it needs to be nearer the top of this range to have a serious impact on behavior.
There will also be costs for manufacturing, transport, etc. for pretty much everything we buy, which of course is the whole idea. We need these price signals to guide our purchase decisions. For example, given that I do relatively few miles, right now I actually do not know whether it would improve my carbon footprint if I were to buy a new and more efficient replacement for my 16-year-old RX/7. (Tomorrow I will post about how the amount of meat we eat affects our carbon footprint more than the cars we drive; again, we need the cost of this represented in the price of the meat.)
Before we get into that, we need to talk about units. GHG emissions are normally measured in CO2 equivalents, but some people quote the price per tonne (a.k.a. metric ton) of carbon and some per tonne of carbon dioxide. 1 tonne of CO2 contains about 0.27 tonnes of carbon. Also, estimates may be in different currencies, so I have converted all to US$ per tonne of CO2. (“US$/tCO2”) I have used approximate exchange rates: 2 US$ to the pound sterling, 1.5 US$ to the euro, and 1.25 NZ$ to the US$.
The best-known cap-and-trade system is the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) which started in 2005 on a trial basis and became fully operational at the beginning of 2008 when the Kyoto commitment period started. It covers industries like power generation, iron and steel, glass and cement which between them accounted for about 40% of the CO2 emissions of the EU’s 25 member states at the time. The EU is required by the Kyoto Protocol to cut its emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.
The idea was that permits would be issued to match the target amount of emissions, and these permits were to be given away rather than auctioned. Since the target was less than the previous level of emissions, affected industries would have to reduce their own emissions or buy permits from other companies who were better able to reduce theirs. A third option was to buy CERs, or Certified Emission Reductions, from third world countries. These CERs fund projects which reduce emissions in those countries and which would not be economic without the sale of CERs.
That was the theory anyway. Unfortunately, each member country got to decide how many permits to give away, and it soon became clear that too many had been issued. The result was that the price, which was expected to be over 40 euros per tonne, at one point plummeted to only 8 euros. This was expected to be corrected when the scheme became fully operational on January 1st 2008, but it has been somewhat derailed by the global credit crunch which has reduced expectations of energy demand. The price of carbon on the ETS is currently about 20 euros and for CERs about 15 euros.
Another approach is a carbon tax, but there are few if any examples. (The city of Boulder, Colorado does have a small carbon tax and there may be other examples. Clearly this needs to be done on a National – or better still, international – basis.) http://www.carbontax.org/ is a good resource for the carbon tax debate in the US. As for what the rate should be, this could be based upon an estimate of what is needed to achieve a certain emission target, or by estimating the actual cost of the damage. In the first case, we might expect the price to be commensurate with the market price in a cap-and-trade system. A 1997 report on a possible carbon tax in New Zealand considered tax rates starting in 2005 between about US$12/tCO2 and US$31/tCO2 (depending upon the target amounting of abatement) and gradually increasing to US$17/tCO2 to US$44/tCO2.
Estimates of the actual cost of climate change are not surprisingly all over the lot. A 2004 meta-study by Richard Tol analyzed 103 estimates from 28 published studies, yielding estimates from slightly negative (because some people benefit from climate change) to US$450/tCO2. The median value was US$4/tCO2 and Tol concludes that the cost – and therefore any tax -- is unlikely to exceed US$13.5tCO2. (All these values converted from US$/tC.)
The Stern Review, commissioned by the UK government and issued in 2006, is perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to estimate the cost of unabated climate change. It came up with a higher value, largely because of the use of a lower social discount rate and equity weighting as discussed last week. It estimated the cost of doing nothing to be about US$85/tCO2, while the cost of reducing emissions was only about US$25/tCO2. (For the key findings, see http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,,1935208,00.html.) In 2007, The UK government’s environmental agency, DEFRA, adopted a social cost of US$50/tCO2 to be used in all cost-benefit analyses of public projects.
So, what does all this mean? It looks like a carbon tax would likely be in the range of US$10/tCO2 to US$50/tCO2.
A gallon of gasoline generates about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. A tonne is about 2200 pounds, so that is less than one hundredth of a tonne. The tax would therefore amount to only about 10 to 50 cents per gallon. With gasoline at $3, that would be an increase of between 3% and 17%.
For electricity generated from coal, the tax would amount to between 1 and 5 cents per kWh. For natural gas it can be as little as half that, though this depends more on the upstream cost of producing the gas. I currently pay about 16 cents per kWh, so that would be about 6% to 30% on my electricity bill. Note that the proportional effect on the electricity bill is much greater than on gasoline. In absolute terms, the difference could be even greater.
Last year my wife and I spent $3000 on electricity (down 25% on two years ago due to CFLs and other measures I will blog about at a later date) and maybe $2500 on gasoline for two cars. So, the total cost of a carbon tax (or the equivalent) for these two items would be somewhere in the range of $250 to $1300 per year. My feeling about this is that it is that it needs to be nearer the top of this range to have a serious impact on behavior.
There will also be costs for manufacturing, transport, etc. for pretty much everything we buy, which of course is the whole idea. We need these price signals to guide our purchase decisions. For example, given that I do relatively few miles, right now I actually do not know whether it would improve my carbon footprint if I were to buy a new and more efficient replacement for my 16-year-old RX/7. (Tomorrow I will post about how the amount of meat we eat affects our carbon footprint more than the cars we drive; again, we need the cost of this represented in the price of the meat.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
