[az-leader] "CO2AL: Environmental enemy No. 1"
- From: "Roland W James" <roland.james@xxxxxxx>
- To: <az-leader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:29:43 -0700
"That points to the biggest fear: warming may trigger irreversible changes
that transform the earth into a largely uninhabitable environment." Quote
from The Economist article below. (7/6/02 The Economist cover story "Coal:
Environmental enemy No. 1"--
plus articles on the global environment, including global climate
change--"Blowing hot and cold".
www.economist.com)
For example, could much of the Rocky
Mountain West become uninhabitable--like the Australian Outback?
The Bush administration's EPA recently said it was likely that there would be
less snow and..."the disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows."
The Arizona Republic runs columns and letters that obfuscate rather thann
enlighten--for example, Thomas Sowell quoting a scientist who has received coal
industry funding or.... On the other hand,
conservative The Economist (see below) can usually be counted on to to
enlighten. Climate will become more extreme and warmer--severe Hurricane
Mitch followed by unprecedented drought in Central America--for example, but
will remain cyclical and variable. Six-sided die for a region might become
3 sides red (hotter--often dryer), 2 sides green (colder), and 1 side
normal, rather than 2-2-2.
"California, automakers at odds over emissions" 7/8/02 Arizona Republic, p. D4
The Economist doesn't favor the "command and control" approach of California,
but market-based instruments like pollution taxes. I've been pushing such an
approach in Arizona; Leg Council has drafted a bill that would put sales and
annual vehicle license taxes (revenue neutral) on sliding scales based on the
fuel efficiency of new non-commercial vehicles
[old vehicles would remain on existing system].
SURVEY: THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
Blowing hot and cold
Jul 4th 2002
From The Economist print edition
Climate change may be slow and uncertain, but that is no excuse for inaction
WHAT would Winston Churchill have done about climate change? Imagine that
Britain's visionary wartime leader had been presented with a potential time
bomb capable of wreaking global havoc, although not certain to do so.
Warding it off would require concerted global action and economic sacrifice
on the home front. Would he have done nothing?
Not if you put it that way. After all, Churchill did not dismiss the Nazi
threat for lack of conclusive evidence of Hitler's evil intentions. But the
answer might be less straightforward if the following provisos had been
added: evidence of this problem would remain cloudy for decades; the worst
effects might not be felt for a century; but the costs of tackling the
problem would start biting immediately. That, in a nutshell, is the dilemma
of climate change. It is asking a great deal of politicians to take action
on behalf of voters who have not even been born yet.
One reason why uncertainty over climate looks to be with us for a long time
is that the oceans, which absorb carbon from the atmosphere, act as a
time-delay mechanism. Their massive thermal inertia means that the climate
system responds only very slowly to changes in the composition of the
atmosphere. Another complication arises from the relationship between carbon
dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas (GHG), and sulphur dioxide
(SO2), a common pollutant. Efforts to reduce man-made emissions of GHGs by
cutting down on fossil-fuel use will reduce emissions of both gases. The
reduction in CO2 will cut warming, but the concurrent SO2 cut may mask that
effect by contributing to the warming.
There are so many such fuzzy factors-ranging from aerosol particles to
clouds to cosmic radiation-that we are likely to see disruptions to familiar
climate patterns for many years without knowing why they are happening or
what to do about them. Tom Wigley, a leading climate scientist and member of
the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), goes further. He
argues in an excellent book published by the Aspen Institute, "US Policies
on Climate Change: What Next?", that whatever policy changes governments
pursue, scientific uncertainties will "make it difficult to detect the
effects of such changes, probably for many decades."
As evidence, he points to the negligible short- to medium-term difference in
temperature resulting from an array of emissions "pathways" on which the
world could choose to embark if it decided to tackle climate change (see
chart 4). He plots various strategies for reducing GHGs (including the Kyoto
one) that will lead in the next century to the stabilisation of atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 at 550 parts per million (ppm). That is roughly double
the level which prevailed in pre-industrial times, and is often mooted by
climate scientists as a reasonable target. But even by 2040, the temperature
differences between the various options will still be tiny-and certainly
within the magnitude of natural climatic variance. In short, in another four
decades we will probably still not know if we have over- or undershot.
Ignorance is not bliss
However, that does not mean we know nothing. We do know, for a start, that
the "greenhouse effect" is real: without the heat-trapping effect of water
vapour, CO2, methane and other naturally occurring GHGs, our planet would be
a lifeless 30°C or so colder. Some of these GHG emissions are captured and
stored by "sinks", such as the oceans, forests and agricultural land, as
part of nature's carbon cycle.
We also know that since the industrial revolution began, mankind's actions
have contributed significantly to that greenhouse effect. Atmospheric
concentrations of GHGs have risen from around 280ppm two centuries ago to
around 370ppm today, thanks chiefly to mankind's use of fossil fuels and, to
a lesser degree, to deforestation and other land-use changes. Both surface
temperatures and sea levels have been rising for some time.
There are good reasons to think temperatures will continue rising. The IPCC
has estimated a likely range for that increase of 1.4°C-5.8°C over the next
century, although the lower end of that range is more likely. Since what
matters is not just the absolute temperature level but the rate of change as
well, it makes sense to try to slow down the increase.
The worry is that a rapid rise in temperatures would lead to climate changes
that could be devastating for many (though not all) parts of the world.
Central America, most of Africa, much of south Asia and northern China could
all be hit by droughts, storms and floods and otherwise made miserable.
Because they are poor and have the misfortune to live near the tropics,
those most likely to be affected will be least able to adapt.
The colder parts of the world may benefit from warming, but they too face
perils. One is the conceivable collapse of the Atlantic "conveyor belt", a
system of currents that gives much of Europe its relatively mild climate; if
temperatures climb too high, say scientists, the system may undergo radical
changes that damage both Europe and America. That points to the biggest
fear: warming may trigger irreversible changes that transform the earth into
a largely uninhabitable environment.
Given that possibility, extremely remote though it is, it is no comfort to
know that any attempts to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at a
particular level will take a very long time. Because of the oceans' thermal
inertia, explains Mr Wigley, even once atmospheric concentrations of GHGs
are stabilised, it will take decades or centuries for the climate to follow
suit. And even then the sea level will continue to rise, perhaps for
millennia.
This is a vast challenge, and it is worth bearing in mind that mankind's
contribution to warming is the only factor that can be controlled. So the
sooner we start drawing up a long-term strategy for climate change, the
better.
What should such a grand plan look like? First and foremost, it must be
global. Since CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for a century or more, any plan
must also extend across several generations.
The plan must recognise, too, that climate change is nothing new: the
climate has fluctuated through history, and mankind has adapted to those
changes-and must continue doing so. In the rich world, some of the more
obvious measures will include building bigger dykes and flood defences. But
since the most vulnerable people are those in poor countries, they too have
to be helped to adapt to rising seas and unpredictable storms.
Infrastructure improvements will be useful, but the best investment will
probably be to help the developing world get wealthier.
It is essential to be clear about the plan's long-term objective. A growing
chorus of scientists now argues that we need to keep temperatures from
rising by much more than 2-3°C in all. That will require the stabilisation
of atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. James Edmonds of the University of
Maryland points out that because of the long life of CO2, stabilisation of
CO2 concentrations is not at all the same thing as stabilisation of CO2
emissions. That, says Mr Edmonds, points to an unavoidable conclusion: "In
the very long term, global net CO2 emissions must eventually peak and
gradually decline toward zero, regardless of whether we go for a target of
350ppm or 1,000ppm."
A low-carbon world:
That is why the long-term objective for climate policy must be a transition
to a low-carbon energy system. Such a transition can be very gradual and
need not necessarily lead to a world powered only by bicycles and windmills,
for two reasons that are often overlooked.
One involves the precise form in which the carbon in the ground is
distributed. According to Michael Grubb of the Carbon Trust, a British
quasi-governmental body, the long-term problem is coal. In theory, we can
burn all of the conventional oil and natural gas in the ground and still
meet the most ambitious goals for tackling climate change. If we do that, we
must ensure that the far greater amounts of carbon trapped as coal (and
unconventional resources like tar sands) never enter the atmosphere.
The snag is that poor countries are likely to continue burning cheap
domestic reserves of coal for decades. That suggests the rich world should
speed the development and diffusion of "low carbon" technologies using the
energy content of coal without releasing its carbon into the atmosphere.
This could be far off, so it still makes sense to keep a watchful eye on the
soaring carbon emissions from oil and gas.
The other reason, as Mr Edmonds took care to point out, is that it is net
emissions of CO2 that need to peak and decline. That leaves scope for the
continued use of fossil fuels as the main source of modern energy if only
some magical way can be found to capture and dispose of the associated CO2.
Happily, scientists already have some magic in the works.
One option is the biological "sequestration" of carbon in forests and
agricultural land. Another promising idea is capturing and storing
CO2-underground, as a solid or even at the bottom of the ocean. Planting
"energy crops" such as switch-grass and using them in conjunction with
sequestration techniques could even result in negative net CO2 emissions,
because such plants use carbon from the atmosphere. If sequestration is
combined with techniques for stripping the hydrogen out of this hydrocarbon,
then coal could even offer a way to sustainable hydrogen energy.
But is anyone going to pay attention to these long-term principles? After
all, over the past couple of years all participants in the Kyoto debate have
excelled at producing short-sighted, selfish and disingenuous arguments. And
the political rift continues: the EU and Japan pushed ahead with
ratification of the Kyoto treaty a month ago, whereas President Bush
reaffirmed his opposition.
However, go back a decade and you will find precisely those principles
enshrined in a treaty approved by the elder George Bush and since reaffirmed
by his son: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). This
treaty was perhaps the most important outcome of the Rio summit, and it
remains the basis for the international climate-policy regime, including
Kyoto.
The treaty is global in nature and long-term in perspective. It commits
signatories to pursuing "the stabilisation of GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the
climate system." Note that the agreement covers GHG concentrations, not
merely emissions. In effect, this commits even gas-guzzling America to the
goal of declining emissions.
Better than Kyoto:
Crucially, the FCCC treaty not only lays down the ends but also specifies
the means: any strategy to achieve stabilisation of GHG concentrations, it
insists, "must not be disruptive of the global economy". That was the
stumbling block for the Kyoto treaty, which is built upon the FCCC
agreement: its targets and timetables proved unrealistic.
Any revised Kyoto treaty or follow-up accord (which must include the United
States and the big developing countries) should rest on three basic pillars.
First, governments everywhere (but especially in Europe) must understand
that a reduction in emissions has to start modestly. That is because the
capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived,
so a dash to scrap fossil-fuel production would be hugely expensive.
However, as Mr Grubb points out, that pragmatism must be flanked by policies
that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing
plants.
Second, governments everywhere (but especially in America) must send a
powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this
is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated
restrictions on GHG emissions or market mechanisms is less important than
that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where
President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry,
unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology.
The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now
clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with
confidence.
The third pillar is to promote science and technology. That means
encouraging basic climate and energy research, and giving incentives for
spreading the results. Rich countries and aid agencies must also find ways
to help the poor world adapt to climate change. This is especially important
if the world starts off with small cuts in emissions, leaving deeper cuts
for later. That, observes Mr Wigley, means that by mid-century "very large
investments would have to have been made-and yet the 'return' on these
investments would not be visible. Continued investment is going to require
more faith in climate science than currently appears to be the case."
Even a visionary like Churchill might have lost heart in the face of all
this uncertainty. Nevertheless, there is a glimmer of hope that today's
peacetime politicians may rise to the occasion.
Miracles sometimes happen
Two decades ago, the world faced a similar dilemma: evidence of a hole in
the ozone layer. Some inconclusive signs suggested that it was man-made,
caused by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). There was the distant
threat of disaster, and the knowledge that a concerted global response was
required. Industry was reluctant at first, yet with leadership from Britain
and America the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987. That deal has proved
surprisingly successful. The manufacture of CFCs is nearly phased out, and
there are already signs that the ozone layer is on the way to recovery.
This story holds several lessons for the admittedly far more complex climate
problem. First, it is the rich world which has caused the problem and which
must lead the way in solving it. Second, the poor world must agree to help,
but is right to insist on being given time-as well as money and
technology-to help it adjust. Third, industry holds the key: in the
ozone-depletion story, it was only after DuPont and ICI broke ranks with the
rest of the CFC manufacturers that a deal became possible. On the climate
issue, BP and Shell have similarly broken ranks with Big Oil, but the
American energy industry-especially the coal sector-remains hostile.
The final lesson is the most important: that the uncertainty surrounding a
threat such as climate change is no excuse for inaction. New scientific
evidence shows that the threat from ozone depletion had been much deadlier
than was thought at the time when the world decided to act. Churchill would
surely have approved.
7/6/02 The Economist cover story
"Coal: Environmental enemy No. 1"--
plus articles on the global environment, including global climate
change--"Blowing hot and cold" above.
www.economist.com
IS GROWTH bad for the environment? It is certainly fashionable in some
quarters to argue that trade and capitalism are choking the planet to death.
Yet it is also nonsense. As our survey of the environment this week
explains, there is little evidence to back up such alarmism. On the
contrary, there is reason to believe not only that growth can be compatible
with greenery, but that it often bolsters it.
This is not, however, to say that there are no environmental problems to
worry about. In particular, the needlessly dirty, unhealthy and inefficient
way in which we use energy is the biggest source of environmental fouling.
That is why it makes sense to start a slow shift away from today's filthy
use of fossil fuels towards a cleaner, low-carbon future.
There are three reasons for calling for such an energy revolution. First, a
switch to cleaner energy would make tackling other green concerns a lot
easier. That is because dealing with many of these-treating chemical waste,
recycling aluminium or incinerating municipal rubbish, for instance-is in
itself an energy-intensive task. The second reason is climate change. The
most sensible way for governments to tackle this genuine (but long-term)
problem is to send a powerful signal that the world must move towards a
low-carbon future. That will spur all sorts of innovations in clean energy.
The third reason is the most pressing of all: human health. In poor
countries, where inefficient power stations, sooty coal boilers and bad
ventilation are the norm, air pollution is one of the leading preventable
causes of death. It affects some of the rich world too. From Athens to
Beijing, the impact of fine particles released by the combustion of fossil
fuels, and especially coal, is among today's biggest public-health concerns.
Dethroning King Coal:
The dream of cleaner energy will never be realised as long as the balance is
tilted toward dirty technologies. For a start, governments must scrap
perverse subsidies that actually encourage the consumption of fossil fuels.
Some of these, such as cash given by Spain and Germany to the coal industry,
are blatantly wrong-headed. Others are less obvious, but no less damaging. A
clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from complying
with current emissions rules, so much of America's electricity is now
produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing this
loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give
those dirty old clunkers a new lease on life. Nor are poor countries
blameless: many subsidise electricity heavily in the name of helping poor
people, but rich farmers and urban elites then get to guzzle cheap (mostly
coal-fired) power.
The harm done to human health and the environment from burning fossil fuels
is not reflected in the price of those fuels, especially coal, in most
countries
That points to a second prescription: the rich world could usefully help
poorer countries to switch to cleaner energy. A forthcoming study by the
International Energy Agency estimates that there are 1.6 billion people in
the world who are unable to use modern energy. They often walk many miles to
fetch wood, or collect cow dung, to use as fuel. As the poor world grows
richer in coming decades, and builds thousands of power plants, many more
such unfortunates will get electricity. That good news will come with a
snag. Unless the rich world intervenes, many of these plants will burn coal
in a dirty way. The resultant surge in carbon emissions will cast a grim
shadow over the coming decades. Ending subsidies for exporters of
fossil-fuel power plants might help. But stronger action is probably needed,
meaning that the rich world must be ready to pay for the poor to switch to
low-carbon energy. This should not be regarded as mere charity, but rather
as a form of insurance against global warming.
The final and most crucial step is to start pricing energy properly. At the
moment, the harm done to human health and the environment from burning
fossil fuels is not reflected in the price of those fuels, especially coal,
in most countries. There is no perfect way to do this, but one good idea is
for governments to impose a tax based on carbon emissions. Such a tax could
be introduced gradually, with the revenues raised returned as reductions in,
say, labour taxes. That would make absolutely clear that the time has come
to stop burning dirty fuels such as coal, using today's technologies.
The dawning of the age of hydrogen:
None of these changes need kill off coal altogether. Rather, they would
provide a much-needed boost to the development of low-carbon technologies.
Naturally, renewables such as solar and wind will get a boost. But so too
would "sequestration", an innovative way of using fossil fuels without
releasing carbon into the air (see article).
This matters for two reasons. For a start, there is so much cheap coal,
distributed all over the world, that poor countries are bound to burn it.
The second reason is that sequestration offers a fine stepping-stone to
squeaky clean hydrogen energy. Once the energy trapped in coal is unleashed
and its carbon sequestered, energy-laden hydrogen can be used directly in
fuel cells. These nifty inventions can power a laptop, car or home without
any harmful emissions at all.
It will take time to get to this hydrogen age, but there are promising
harbingers. Within a few years, nearly every big car maker plans to have
fuel-cell cars on the road. Power plants using this technology are already
trickling on to the market. Most big oil companies have active hydrogen and
carbon-sequestration efforts under way. Even some green groups opposed to
all things fossil say they are willing to accept sequestration as a bridge
to a renewables-based hydrogen future.
Best of all, this approach offers even defenders of coal a realistic
long-term plan for tackling climate change. Since he rejected the UN's Kyoto
treaty on climate change, George Bush has been portrayed as a stooge for the
energy industry. This week, California's legislature forged ahead by passing
restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases; a Senate committee has acted
similarly. Mr Bush, who has made surprisingly positive comments about carbon
sequestration and fuel cells, could silence the critics by following suit.
By cracking down on carbon and embracing hydrogen, he could even lead.
You are subscribed to AZ-LEADER. To post to this mailing list, simply send
email to az-leader@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to
az-leader-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
Other related posts:
- » [az-leader] "CO2AL: Environmental enemy No. 1"
